Cargando…
Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures
PURPOSE: The use of robotics is emerging for performing interventional radiology procedures. Robots in interventional radiology are typically controlled using button presses and joystick movements. This study identified how different human–robot interfaces affect endovascular surgical performance us...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10589154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37460915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02991-2 |
_version_ | 1785123727094054912 |
---|---|
author | Jackson, Benjamin Crinnion, William De Iturrate Reyzabal, Mikel Robertshaw, Harry Bergeles, Christos Rhode, Kawal Booth, Thomas |
author_facet | Jackson, Benjamin Crinnion, William De Iturrate Reyzabal, Mikel Robertshaw, Harry Bergeles, Christos Rhode, Kawal Booth, Thomas |
author_sort | Jackson, Benjamin |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The use of robotics is emerging for performing interventional radiology procedures. Robots in interventional radiology are typically controlled using button presses and joystick movements. This study identified how different human–robot interfaces affect endovascular surgical performance using interventional radiology simulations. METHODS: Nine participants performed a navigation task on an interventional radiology simulator with three different human–computer interfaces. Using Simulation Open Framework Architecture we developed a simulation profile of vessels, catheters and guidewires. We designed and manufactured a bespoke haptic interventional radiology controller for robotic systems to control the simulation. Metrics including time taken for navigation, number of incorrect catheterisations, number of catheter and guidewire prolapses and forces applied to vessel walls were measured and used to characterise the interfaces. Finally, participants responded to a questionnaire to evaluate the perception of the controllers. RESULTS: Time taken for navigation, number of incorrect catheterisations and the number of catheter and guidewire prolapses, showed that the device-mimicking controller is better suited for controlling interventional neuroradiology procedures over joystick control approaches. Qualitative metrics also showed that interventional radiologists prefer a device-mimicking controller approach over a joystick approach. CONCLUSION: Of the four metrics used to compare and contrast the human–robot interfaces, three conclusively showed that a device-mimicking controller was better suited for controlling interventional neuroradiology robotics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10589154 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105891542023-10-22 Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures Jackson, Benjamin Crinnion, William De Iturrate Reyzabal, Mikel Robertshaw, Harry Bergeles, Christos Rhode, Kawal Booth, Thomas Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Original Article PURPOSE: The use of robotics is emerging for performing interventional radiology procedures. Robots in interventional radiology are typically controlled using button presses and joystick movements. This study identified how different human–robot interfaces affect endovascular surgical performance using interventional radiology simulations. METHODS: Nine participants performed a navigation task on an interventional radiology simulator with three different human–computer interfaces. Using Simulation Open Framework Architecture we developed a simulation profile of vessels, catheters and guidewires. We designed and manufactured a bespoke haptic interventional radiology controller for robotic systems to control the simulation. Metrics including time taken for navigation, number of incorrect catheterisations, number of catheter and guidewire prolapses and forces applied to vessel walls were measured and used to characterise the interfaces. Finally, participants responded to a questionnaire to evaluate the perception of the controllers. RESULTS: Time taken for navigation, number of incorrect catheterisations and the number of catheter and guidewire prolapses, showed that the device-mimicking controller is better suited for controlling interventional neuroradiology procedures over joystick control approaches. Qualitative metrics also showed that interventional radiologists prefer a device-mimicking controller approach over a joystick approach. CONCLUSION: Of the four metrics used to compare and contrast the human–robot interfaces, three conclusively showed that a device-mimicking controller was better suited for controlling interventional neuroradiology robotics. Springer International Publishing 2023-07-17 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10589154/ /pubmed/37460915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02991-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Jackson, Benjamin Crinnion, William De Iturrate Reyzabal, Mikel Robertshaw, Harry Bergeles, Christos Rhode, Kawal Booth, Thomas Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures |
title | Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures |
title_full | Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures |
title_fullStr | Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures |
title_short | Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures |
title_sort | comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10589154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37460915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02991-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jacksonbenjamin comparativeverificationofcontrolmethodologyforroboticinterventionalneuroradiologyprocedures AT crinnionwilliam comparativeverificationofcontrolmethodologyforroboticinterventionalneuroradiologyprocedures AT deiturratereyzabalmikel comparativeverificationofcontrolmethodologyforroboticinterventionalneuroradiologyprocedures AT robertshawharry comparativeverificationofcontrolmethodologyforroboticinterventionalneuroradiologyprocedures AT bergeleschristos comparativeverificationofcontrolmethodologyforroboticinterventionalneuroradiologyprocedures AT rhodekawal comparativeverificationofcontrolmethodologyforroboticinterventionalneuroradiologyprocedures AT booththomas comparativeverificationofcontrolmethodologyforroboticinterventionalneuroradiologyprocedures |