Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A haptic interface for computer-integrated endoscopic surgery and training

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Haptic feedback has the potential to provide superior performance in computer-integrated surgery and training. This paper discusses the design of a user interface that is capable of providing force feedback in all the degrees of freedom (DOFs) available during endoscopic surgery. Using the Jacobian matrix of the haptic interface and its singular values, methods are proposed for analysis and optimization of the interface performance with regard to the accuracy of force feedback, the range of applicable forces, and the accuracy of control. The haptic user interface is used with a sensorized slave robot to form a master–slave test-bed for studying haptic interaction in a minimally invasive environment. Using the master–slave test-bed, teleoperation experiments involving a single degree of freedom surgical task (palpation) are conducted. Different bilateral control methods are compared based on the transparency of the master–slave system in terms of transmitting the critical task-related information to the user in the context of soft-tissue surgical applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Similarly, in a virtual-reality environment, the user manipulates virtual and usually deformable objects and receives force feedback through an interface similar to the master interface in master–slave robotic surgery [25]

  2. These two mechanisms have been intentionally placed on opposite sides of the fulcrum in order to have as much static balancing as possible.

  3. At maximum force (high stiffness resistance against the user’s hand), the motor is almost steady.

References

  1. Furukawa T, Morikawa Y, Ozawa S, Wakabayashi G, Kitajima M (2001) The revolution of computer-aided surgery—the dawn of robotic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 10(6):283–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Surg Endosc 16(10):1389–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Breedveld P, Stassen HG, Meijer DW, Jakimowicz JJ (2000) Observation in laparoscopic surgery: overview of impeding effects and supporting aids. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 10:231–241

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tendick F, Jennings R, Tharp G, Stark L (1996) Perception and manipulation problems in endoscopic surgery. In: Computer-integrated surgery: technology and clinical applications. MIT Press, Cambridge

  5. Taylor RH, Stoianovici D (2003) Medical robotics in computer-integrated surgery. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 19:765–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dario P, Hannaford B, Menciassi A (2003) Smart surgical tools and augmented devices. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 19(5):782–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Howe RD, Matsuoka Y (1999) Robotics for surgery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 01:211–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Malpass L (1963) Motor skills in mental deficiency. In: Handbook of mental deficiency. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shimoga KB (1993) A survey of perceptual feedback issues in dextrous telemanipulation: part I. Finger force feedback. In: Proceedings of the IEEE annual virtual reality international symposium, pp 271–279

  10. Burdea GC (1996) Force and touch feedback for virtual reality. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hannaford B, Wood L (1989) Performance evaluation of a 6 axis high fidelity generalized force reflecting teleoperator. In: Proceedings of the JPL/NASA conference on space telerobotics, pp 89–97

  12. Gerovichev O, Marayong P, Okamura AM (2002) The effect of visual and haptic feedback on manual and teleoperated needle insertion. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on medical image computing and computer assisted intervention, pp 147–154

  13. Wagner C, Stylopoulos N, Howe R (2002) Force feedback in surgery: analysis of blunt dissection. In: Proceedings of the 10th symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, pp 68–74

  14. Sung GT, Gill IS (2001) Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and Zeus systems. Urology 58(6):893–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hashizume M, Shimada M, Tomikawa M, Ikeda Y, Takahashi I, Abe R, Koga F, Gotoh N, Konishi K, Maehara S, Sugimachi K (2002) Early experiences of endoscopic procedures in general surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system. Surg Endosc 16(8):1187–1191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tendick F, Jennings R, Tharp G, Stark L (1993) Sensing and manipulation problems in endoscopic surgery: experiment, analysis and observation. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ 2(1):66–81

    Google Scholar 

  17. Taffinder N, Sutton C, Fishwick RJ, McManus IC, Darzi A (1998) Validation of virtual reality to teach and assess psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery: results from randomised controlled studies using the MIST VR laparoscopic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform 50:124–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mason AH, Walji MA, Lee EJ, MacKenzie CL (2001) Reaching movements to augmented and graphic objects in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp 426–433

  19. Fitts PM, Peterson J (1964) Information capacity of discrete motor responses. J Exp Psychol 67(2):103–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta R, Sheridan T, Whitney D (1997) Experiments using multi-modal virtual environments in design for assembly analysis. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ 6(3):318–338

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hurmuzlu Y, Ephanov A, Stoianovici D (1998) Effect of a pneumatically driven haptic interface on the perceptional capabilities of human operators. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ 7(3):290–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen E, Marcus B (1998) Force feedback for surgical simulation. Proc IEEE 86(3):524–530

    Google Scholar 

  23. Moody L, Baber C, Arvanitis TN, Elliott M (2003) Objective metrics for the evaluation of simple surgical skills in real and virtual domains. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ 12(2):207–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Feygin D, Keehner M, Tendick F (2002) Haptic guidance: experimental evaluation of a haptic training method for a perceptual motor skill. In: Proceedings of the 10th symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, pp 40–47

  25. Guo X, Hua J, Qin H (2004) Touch-based haptics for interactive editing on point set surfaces. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 24(6):31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sherman A, Cavusoglu M, Tendick F (2000) Comparison of teleoperator control architectures for palpation task. In: Proceedings of the symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, pp 1261–1268

  27. Lazeroms M (1999) Force reflection for telemanipulation applied to minimally invasive surgery. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology

  28. Madhani A, Niemeyer G, Salisbury JK Jr (1998) The black falcon—a teleoperated surgical instrument for minimally invasive surgery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 936–944

  29. Youngblut C, Johnston RE, Nash SH, Wienclaw RA, Will CA (1996) Review of virtual environment interface technology. Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) Paper P-3186

  30. Massie TH (1993) Design of a three degree of freedom force-reflecting haptic interface. BS thesis, MIT

  31. Holden JG, Flach JM, Donchin Y (1999) Perceptual-motor coordination in an endoscopic surgery simulation. Surg Endosc 13(2):127–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gao F, Gruver WA (1997) Performance evaluation criteria for analysis and design of robotic mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on advanced robotics, pp 879–884

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gosselin C, Angeles J (1991) A global performance index for the kinematic optimization of robotic manipulators. Trans ASME J Mech Design 113:220–226

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tavakoli M, Patel R, Moallem M (2005) Haptic interaction in robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a sensorized end effector. Int J Med Rob Comput Assist Surg 1(2):53–63

    Google Scholar 

  35. Taylor RM II, Hudson TC, Seeger A, Weber H, Juliano J, Helser AT (2001) VRPN: a device-independent, network-transparent VR peripheral system. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, pp 55–61

  36. Yokokohji Y, Yoshikawa T (1994) Bilateral control of master-slave manipulators for ideal kinesthetic coupling—formulation and experiment. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 10(5):605–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nicosia S, Tomei P (1990) Robot control by using only joint position measurements. IEEE Trans Autom Control 35(9):1058–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hacksel PJ, Salcudean SE (1994) Estimation of environment forces and rigid-body velocities using observers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 931–936

  39. Hannaford B (1989) A design framework for teleoperators with kinesthetic feedback. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 5:426–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cavusoglu MC, Sherman A, Tendick F (2002) Design of bilateral teleoperation controllers for haptic exploration and telemanipulation of soft environments. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 18(4):641–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hashtrudi-Zaad K, Salcudean SE (2002) Transparency in time-delayed systems and the effect of local force feedback for transparent teleoperation. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 18:108–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund under grant 00-May-0709, infrastructure grants from the Canada Foundation for Innovation awarded to the London Health Sciences Centre (CSTAR) and the University of Western Ontario, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada under grants RGPIN-1345 and RGPIN-227612, and the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems under a CSA-IRIS grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Canadian Surgical Technologies and Advanced Robotics, London Health Sciences Centre, 339 Winderemere Road, London, Ont, N6A 5A5, Canada

    M. Tavakoli, R. V. Patel & M. Moallem

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont, N6A 5B9, Canada

    M. Tavakoli, R. V. Patel & M. Moallem

Authors
  1. M. Tavakoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. V. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Moallem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Tavakoli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tavakoli, M., Patel, R.V. & Moallem, M. A haptic interface for computer-integrated endoscopic surgery and training. Virtual Reality 9, 160–176 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-005-0017-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-005-0017-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation