Robotic Instrument Retraction Control for Tissue-Safe Extraction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing robotic medical procedures face challenges in efficiently controlling the axial movement of shaft-type instruments, particularly during procedures like ureteroscopy, to prevent tissue damage and ensure precise extraction of objects such as kidney stones, while requiring coordinated control of multiple instruments by multiple operators.

Innovation Solution

Implementing robotic systems with instrument feeders that automatically adjust the axial movement of medical instruments based on position detection, including automatic pause and speed control at specific locations, such as exiting a body cavity, to enhance procedural efficiency and safety.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If manual control of instrument axial movement is used, then operator flexibility is maintained, but procedural efficiency decreases and tissue damage risk increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocedural efficiencyVSAvoidcontrol system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The instrument feeder system automatically controls axial movement of the medical instrument based on position detection, eliminating the need for manual operator control. The system self-regulates speed and pausing based on detected anatomical landmarks and instrument position, improving procedural efficiency while reducing human error and tissue damage risk.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system incorporates position detection feedback mechanisms that continuously monitor instrument location and automatically adjust axial movement parameters. This closed-loop control enables precise speed regulation and automatic pausing at critical locations, resolving the contradiction between automation benefits and control complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Manufacturing precision

If automatic position-based control is implemented, then movement precision improves, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemovement precisionVSAvoidinstrument feeder complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system is divided into modular components: position detection module, speed control module, and automatic pausing module. Each module performs a specific function, making the overall system more manageable despite increased complexity. The segmentation allows independent optimization of each component while maintaining precise coordinated control.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system pre-programmes control parameters for different anatomical locations and instrument stages. Position-based control rules are established in advance, allowing the system to automatically execute precise movement patterns without real-time complex calculations, thereby improving precision while managing system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Reliability

If speed control is automated, then safety against tissue damage improves, but operational flexibility decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidoperational flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The speed control system dynamically adjusts axial movement velocity based on real-time position detection and pre-set safety parameters. The system automatically modifies speed profiles for different anatomical regions and instrument configurations, maintaining safety while adapting to varying procedural requirements. This dynamic adaptation preserves operational flexibility within safe parameters.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes operational parameters (speed, pausing duration) automatically based on detected position and procedural stage. By programmatically managing parameter variations, the system ensures safety constraints are always met while maintaining the ability to adapt to different procedural needs, effectively balancing safety and flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Ease of operation

If multiple instruments are controlled manually by multiple operators, then individual instrument control is simplified, but coordination difficulty increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveindividual instrument controlVSAvoidcoordination complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges control of multiple instruments under a single automated coordination framework. The instrument feeder system synchronizes axial movement of multiple instruments based on their respective position detection data, eliminating the need for multiple operators to coordinate manually. This consolidation simplifies individual instrument control while the automated system handles the coordination complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentUS20260001225A1Robotic instrument drive control
Publication Date: 2026.01.01 AURIS HEALTH INC
  • US20260001225A1 patent drawing
  • US20260001225A1 patent drawing
  • US20260001225A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A robotic system includes a medical instrument comprising an elongate shaft dimensioned to be disposed at least partially within an access sheath and control circuitry configured to cause the elongate shaft to be retracted at least partially within the access sheath, determine a position of a distal end of the elongate shaft relative to the access sheath, and modify a speed of retraction of the elongate shaft based on the determined position of the distal end of the elongate shaft relative to the access sheath.