Xiaomei Wang1, Kit-Hang Lee1, Denny K C Fu1, Ziyang Dong1, Kui Wang1, Ge Fang1, Su-Lin Lee2, Alex P W Lee3, Ka-Wai Kwok4. 1. The Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. 2. The Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong. 4. The Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. kwokkw@hku.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In cardiac electrophysiology, a long and flexible catheter is delivered to a cardiac chamber for the treatment of arrhythmias. Although several robot-assisted platforms have been commercialized, the disorientation in tele-operation is still not well solved. We propose a validation platform for robot-assisted cardiac EP catheterization, integrating a customized MR Safe robot, a standard clinically used EP catheter, and a human-robot interface. Both model-based and model-free control methods are implemented in the platform for quantitative evaluation and comparison. METHODS: The model-based and model-free control methods were validated by subject test (ten participants), in which the subjects have to perform a simulated radiofrequency ablation task using both methods. A virtual endoscopic view of the catheter is also provided to enhance hand-to-eye coordination. Assessment indices for targeting accuracy and efficiency were acquired for the evaluation. RESULTS: (1) Accuracy: The average distance measured from catheter tip to the closest lesion target during ablation of model-free method was 19.1% shorter than that of model-based control. (2) Efficiency: The model-free control reduced the total missed targets by 35.8% and the maximum continuously missed targets by 46.2%, both indices corresponded to a low p value ([Formula: see text]). CONCLUSION: The model-free method performed better in terms of both accuracy and efficiency, indicating the model-free control could adapt to soft interaction with environment, as compared with the model-based control that does not consider contacts.
PURPOSE: In cardiac electrophysiology, a long and flexible catheter is delivered to a cardiac chamber for the treatment of arrhythmias. Although several robot-assisted platforms have been commercialized, the disorientation in tele-operation is still not well solved. We propose a validation platform for robot-assisted cardiac EP catheterization, integrating a customized MR Safe robot, a standard clinically used EP catheter, and a human-robot interface. Both model-based and model-free control methods are implemented in the platform for quantitative evaluation and comparison. METHODS: The model-based and model-free control methods were validated by subject test (ten participants), in which the subjects have to perform a simulated radiofrequency ablation task using both methods. A virtual endoscopic view of the catheter is also provided to enhance hand-to-eye coordination. Assessment indices for targeting accuracy and efficiency were acquired for the evaluation. RESULTS: (1) Accuracy: The average distance measured from catheter tip to the closest lesion target during ablation of model-free method was 19.1% shorter than that of model-based control. (2) Efficiency: The model-free control reduced the total missed targets by 35.8% and the maximum continuously missed targets by 46.2%, both indices corresponded to a low p value ([Formula: see text]). CONCLUSION: The model-free method performed better in terms of both accuracy and efficiency, indicating the model-free control could adapt to soft interaction with environment, as compared with the model-based control that does not consider contacts.
Authors: A C Lardo; E R McVeigh; P Jumrussirikul; R D Berger; H Calkins; J Lima; H R Halperin Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-08-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael Bock; Sven Müller; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Peter Speier; Christian Fink; Peter Hallscheidt; Reiner Umathum; Wolfhard Semmler Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Amish N Raval; Parag V Karmarkar; Michael A Guttman; Cengizhan Ozturk; Ranil Desilva; Ronnier J Aviles; Victor J Wright; William H Schenke; Ergin Atalar; Elliot R McVeigh; Robert J Lederman Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Reza Razavi; Derek L G Hill; Stephen F Keevil; Marc E Miquel; Vivek Muthurangu; Sanjeet Hegde; Kawal Rhode; Michael Barnett; Joop van Vaals; David J Hawkes; Edward Baker Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-12-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hao Su; Ka-Wai Kwok; Kevin Cleary; Iulian Iordachita; M Cenk Cavusoglu; Jaydev P Desai; Gregory S Fischer Journal: Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 14.910