Robotic Surgical End Effector Actuation Control
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Minimally invasive robotically-controlled surgical instruments lack a mechanism to prevent unintentional actuation of end effectors, leading to potential undesirable surgical actions at inappropriate times or locations.
Innovation Solution
A method and system that includes a controller receiving a first input signal indicating readiness to actuate the instrument, providing feedback, and requiring a second confirmed input before actuating the surgical instrument, allowing for cancellation of the actuation process if needed, thereby preventing unintentional use.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If automatic actuation is implemented for surgical procedures, then productivity and efficiency are improved, but the risk of unintentional actuation increases and reliability deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The system requires the surgeon to perform a preliminary action (first input signal) to arm the instrument, which prepares the system for actuation but does not immediately execute the surgical procedure. This preliminary step allows the surgeon to position the instrument correctly before committing to the actuation, thereby maintaining efficiency while adding a safety layer to prevent unintentional actuation.
Solution Approach 2:
The system provides feedback to the surgeon indicating when the instrument is armed and ready for actuation. This feedback mechanism ensures the surgeon is aware of the system state, allowing them to make informed decisions about when to proceed with the second input signal for actual actuation, thus preventing unintentional activation while maintaining workflow efficiency.
2Reliability
If a confirmation mechanism is added to prevent unintentional actuation, then reliability is improved, but device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The actuation process is segmented into two distinct phases: arming (first input signal) and execution (second input signal). This segmentation separates the preparation phase from the execution phase, allowing each to be controlled independently. The complexity is managed by clearly defining the boundaries between phases and using simple, distinct input signals for each phase rather than a single complex control mechanism.
3Reliability
If multiple input signals are required for actuation, then actuation safety is improved, but ease of operation deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The actuation process uses periodic action by requiring two distinct input signals in sequence (first to arm, second to execute). This periodic structure creates a natural rhythm in the surgical workflow, where the surgeon performs a preparation action followed by an execution action. The periodic nature makes the process memorable and reduces the likelihood of accidental activation while maintaining operational simplicity through consistent, repeatable steps.
Data Source
Figure 1A
Figure 1B
Figure 2
AI summary
A method of controlling an operation of a robotically-controlled surgical instrument can include receiving a first input signal at a controller indicative of a user's readiness to actuate the surgical instrument to perform a surgical procedure, outputting an output signal from the controller to provide feedback to the user in response to the received first input signal, receiving a second input signal at the controller confirming the user's readiness to actuate the surgical instrument, outputting an actuation signal from the controller in response to receiving the second input signal, and actuating the surgical instrument to perform the surgical procedure based on the actuation signal.