| Literature DB >> 29439539 |
Chongjun Yang1, Yu Xie2,3, Shuang Liu4, Dong Sun5.
Abstract
Robot-assisted surgery is of growing interest in the surgical and engineering communities. The use of robots allows surgery to be performed with precision using smaller instruments and incisions, resulting in shorter healing times. However, using current technology, an operator cannot directly feel the operation because the surgeon-instrument and instrument-tissue interaction force feedbacks are lost during needle insertion. Advancements in force feedback and control not only help reduce tissue deformation and needle deflection but also provide the surgeon with better control over the surgical instruments. The goal of this review is to summarize the key components surrounding the force feedback and control during robot-assisted needle insertion. The literature search was conducted during the middle months of 2017 using mainstream academic search engines with a combination of keywords relevant to the field. In total, 166 articles with valuable contents were analyzed and grouped into five related topics. This survey systemically summarizes the state-of-the-art force control technologies for robot-assisted needle insertion, such as force modeling, measurement, the factors that influence the interaction force, parameter identification, and force control algorithms. All studies show force control is still at its initial stage. The influence factors, needle deflection or planning remain open for investigation in future.Entities:
Keywords: force control; force measurement; force modeling; needle insertion; parameter identification
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29439539 PMCID: PMC5855056 DOI: 10.3390/s18020561
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
The article group of the survey, reflecting the correlation for the related topics.
| Group | Topic | References |
|---|---|---|
| G1 | Methods of needle insertion force modeling | [ |
| G2 | Needle insertion force measurement | [ |
| G3 | Influence factor of needle insertion force | [ |
| G4 | Parameter identification for needle insertion force control | [ |
| G5 | Robot-assisted needle insertion force control | [ |
Figure 1Schematic of the structure of the survey.
Methods of needle insertion force modeling.
| Method | Advantages and Limitations | Applications | References | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Needle Deflection & Tissue Deformation | Path Planning & Navigation | Force Analysis | Online Force Control | ||||
| Finite element method | Accurate representation of complex geometry; Inclusion of dissimilar material properties; Capture of local effects | Excessive calculation and high precision mostly rely on their inputs; In vivo and online are not available | √ | √ | √ | × | [ |
| Energy method | Calculate energy variation from deformation; Easy representation of the total solution; Available for complex motion forms | Neglect the specific process; Does not reflect online detail information | √ | √ | √ | × | [ |
| Statistical method | Acquire data distribution characters; Reflect patient-specific and procedure-specific criteria; Data correlation analysis | Require high integrity; Huge workload; Offline estimation | × | √ | √ | × | [ |
| Analytical method | Reflect locally and totally; Not limited to its boundary conditions; Fast computation; Online estimation | Complex formation; Not in detail | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ |
In the column of Applications, “√” means yes, “×” means no.
Figure 2A force profile of needle-tissue interaction forces at 3 mm/s [25].
Figure 3Locations of the tissue surface in different puncture stages: (a) pre-puncture Z, (b) puncture Z, and (c) post-puncture Z [23].
Analytical methods of needle insertion force modeling.
| Modeling | Method | Advantages and Limitations | Applications | References | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Needle Deflection & Tissue Deformation | Path Planning & Navigation | Force Analysis | Online Force Control | |||||
| Stiffness force | Nonlinear spring model | Describe the nonlinear force caused by large deformations; Inclusion of dissimilar material properties | Higher root mean square error; not reflect online detail information | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ |
| Quasi-static model | Lower root mean square error; Capture of local effects; Easy representation of the total solution; Available for complex motion forms | Neglect the specific process; the specific offline parameters used only for corresponding conditions | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Hunt-Crossley model | Consider the penetration depth; match the deformation caused by needle insertion well | Neglect small motions between two objects; require high integrity; huge workload | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Exponential model | Reflect locally and totally in detail; lower root mean square error; fast computation; online estimation | The specific offline parameters used only for corresponding conditions | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Contact model | Consider mechanical properties and deformation; avoid the influence caused by special needle and material properties | Unavailability of the online estimation methods | √ | √ | √ | × | [ | |
| Friction force | Modified Karnopp model | Reflect the dynamic friction and static friction; Capture the subtle effects of the Stribeck effect and Dahl model in soft tissue | Within a “dead zone” near zero velocity | √ | × | √ | √ | [ |
| Modified Winkler based model | Affect the measurement of relative velocity; reflect force distribution | Difficult to obtain and estimate the criteria of the friction models; relative movement is invisible | √ | × | √ | × | [ | |
| Fourier series based model | Avoid obtaining the needle-tissue relative velocity | Not reflect detail information; Huge workload | √ | √ | × | √ | [ | |
| Elasto-Plastic model | Avoid significant presliding displacement in a dynamical condition. | Relative velocity is hard to obtain | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Relative velocity model | Instead of the absolute velocity to focus on the relationship between the friction and the velocity; distinguish high or low relative velocities | Not reflect condition in detail under low relative velocities | × | × | √ | × | [ | |
| Damping based model | Calculate the cutting force from the total measured force | Neglect the specific process; Not reflect online detail information | × | × | √ | × | [ | |
| Thickness and elastic modulus based model | Consider both the thickness and the elastic modulus of the material | The specific offline parameters used only for corresponding conditions | × | × | √ | × | [ | |
| Elastic modulus and real-time friction model | Nonlinear local elastic modulus and real-time friction condition | Relative velocity is hard to obtain | × | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Dahl model | Capture presliding displacement; Describe viscous friction in low-velocity regimes; predict the friction lag | Cannot capture the Stribeck effect and reflect the static friction. | √ | × | √ | × | [ | |
| Cutting force modeling | Constant model | Simple; Easy to calculate | The specific offline parameters used only for corresponding conditions | × | × | √ | × | [ |
| Deformation phase based model | Reflect real-time force property | The force is only acquired during deformation | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Maximum cutting force model | Consider the effects of the contact areas and resistances; reflect tip characteristics and the resistances; reflected the tearing or puncturing | The specific offline parameters used only for tearing or puncturing | √ | √ | √ | × | [ | |
In the column of Applications, “√” means yes, “×” means no.
Figure 4Contact mechanics model for stiffness force [25].
Figure 5(a) Karnopp and (b) modified Karnopp friction models [23].
Figure 6Modified Winkler’s foundation model for the friction force [25].
Figure 7Microscopic representation of irregular contact surfaces and elastic bristles whose bending gives rise to the friction force [42].
Spring-damper based force modeling.
| Model | Legend | Formula | Parameter | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear elastic model | [ | |||
| Kelvin-Voigt model | [ | |||
| Maxwell model | [ | |||
| Kelvin-Boltzmann model | [ |
Figure 8Needle insertion through several tissue layers.
Force measurement and estimation methods for needle insertion.
| Method | Technique | Degree of Freedom (DOF) | Sensitivity | Size | Cost | Advantages and Limitations | Online | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct measurement method | Strain gauge | 1–6 | Force; Torque | Fine | Small | Low | Limited to temperature changes and electromagnetic noise; Drift and hysteresis | High strength; (Ethylene oxide or formaldehyde sterilization; Stainless protected) | Yes | [ |
| Piezoelectric sensor | 1–3 | Force | Fine | Small | High | Limited to temperature changes and charge leakages; Not for static conditions because of drifting signal | High bandwidth; High power density; Great measurement range (Stainless protected) | Yes | [ | |
| Optical sensor | 1–3 | Force; Torque | High | Small | High | Limited to cable deformation | Works in electromagnetic interference (EMI); Reproducibility; No hysteresis | Yes | [ | |
| Indirect estimation method | Calculation method | 1–7 | Force; Torque | Multiple | Multiple | Multiple | Limited to a series of sensors; Complex structure | Acquires hard to detect forces | undetermined | [ |
| Image-based method | 1 | Force | Low | No additional space | No additional cost | Limited to experiments equipped with imaging devices; No detailed analysis of force | Works in a high-temperature and high-pressure (HPHT) or corrosive environments; Easily acquires the total force | undetermined | [ | |
| Actuator input method | Multiple | Force; Torque | Multiple | Multiple | Multiple | Limited to uncertainties; Requires compensation mechanisms; No detailed analysis of force | Easily acquires the total force | Yes | [ | |
In the column of Advantages and limitations, “( )” means the properties in part products.
Influence factors of needle insertion force.
| Item | Effect Factor | Empirical Value or Detail | Correlations between the Influence Factors and Insertion Force | Reference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Needle property | Diameter | 0.31–3.4 mm | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Bevel angle | 8–85° | √ | √ | √ | ||||
| Inclination angle | <30° | √ | ||||||
| Normal rake angle | when | √ | ||||||
| Multi-bevel pen needle tip | 3,5 | √ | ||||||
| Tip type and edge | Diamond (Franseen); Beveled; | √ | ||||||
| Sharpness; Lubrication; Cannula; | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Tissue characteristic | Living tissue | Human | √ | √ | √ | [ | ||
| Animals: porcine, bovine, chicken, rabbit, turkey, sheep, canine | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Organs: kidney, liver, heart, prostate, perineum, skin, | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Artificial material | Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), rubber, silicone gelatin, plastisol | |||||||
| Experimental pretreatment | In vivo or ex vivo; Live or dead; With or without skin | |||||||
| Individual difference | Suborgan or tissue interlace; Blood flow; Age; | |||||||
| Insertion method | Velocity | 0.0008–1000 mm/s | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Motion mode | Translational or rotational motion; | √ | √ | √ | ||||
| Drive mode | Interrupt or continuous; Manual or robotic | √ | √ | |||||
| Direction | 30° | √ | √ | |||||
| Location | Suborgan or tissue interlace; Blood flow | √ | √ | |||||
The blank means there is no related research or the correlation is inconclusive, “√” means yes.
Typical parameter identification methods.
| Item | Typical Method | Advantages and Limitations | Applications | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Needle Deflection & Tissue Deformation | Path Planning & Navigation | Force Analysis | Online Force Control | |||||
| Data-based parameter identification | System response method; | Acquire data distribution characters; Reflect specific criteria; Data correlation analysis | Require high integrity; Huge workload; Offline estimation | √ | √ | √ | × | |
| Static system | Dynamic system | |||||||
| Time-invariant parameter identification | Weighted least-squares estimation; Constrained least-squares estimation; Truncated least-squares estimation; | Least-squares estimation; Ordinary least-squares estimation; Biased least-squares estimation; Generalized least-squares method; Pre-filtering method; Neural network; | Characterize the entire system simply | Not well reflect the real situation of the whole system | √ | × | √ | × |
| Time-varying parameter identification | Recursive least-squares estimation; Square root filtering; Reduced-rank square root (RRSQRT) filtering; Extended Kalman filtering for the estimation | Recursive prediction-error estimation; | Online control; reflect the dynamic characteristics | Improve the complexity of analysis and research | √ | √ | √ | √ |
In the column of Applications, “√” means yes, “×” means no.
Comparison of fundamental force control algorithms.
| Algorithm Classification | Workspace | Measured Variables | Modified Variables | Modulated Objectives | Advantages and Limitations | Applications | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Needle Deflection & Tissue Deformation | Path Planning & Navigation | Force Analysis | Online Force Control | ||||||||
| Active stiffness control | 1. Version one | Joint space | Position, force | Joint displacement, contact force | Joint stiffness matrix | See as a programmable spring; simple structure; good robustnes | Maximum controlled stiffness is influenced by the stability; require force sensor; successful in very specific tasks | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 2. Version two | Task space a | Position error, contact force | Stiffness matrix | ||||||||
| Impedance control | 1. Basic impedance control | Task space | Position, velocity, force | Position and velocity error, contact force | Impedance | Direct control of the force between the end actuators and the environment; realize compliance control | Requires a lot of task planning; | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 2. Position-based impedance control | Modified desired trajectory, contact force | ||||||||||
| Admittance control | Force | Force error | Admittance | Direct control of the force between the end actuators and the environment; realize compliance control | Select appropriate parameters to ensure the stability | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||
| Hybrid control | 1. Hybrid position/force | {P} b | Position | Position error | Position | The position control and force control can be separately considered; Flexible to choose the strategy | Computational complexity; Location coordinates need to be determined by the environmental constraint equation | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| {F} c | Force | Force error | Force | ||||||||
| 2. Hybrid impedance | {P} | Force | Velocity error | Zmp d | |||||||
| {F} | Force error | Zmf e | |||||||||
| Explicit force control | PI, PD, PID, etc. | Task space | Force | Force error | Desired force FD | Direct force feedback | No postion feedback | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Implicit force control | Task space | Position | Position error | Predefined stiffness | The position is controlled by the position for a desired force | No force feedback | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
a Task space = {P}⊕{F}. b {P} is the position subspace. c {F} is the force subspace. d Zmp is the impedance expressed in the position subspace. e Zmf is the impedance expressed in the force subspace.
Figure 9Control architecture of the master-slave system: solid lines represent physical interactions; dashed lines represent signals [102].
Figure 10External hybrid force-position control scheme [160].