Surgical Instrument Control System for Tissue Safety
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing surgical instruments that use a single component for jaw closure and cutting risk inadvertent tissue cutting during grasping, leading to patient injury and complications in minimally invasive surgery due to the lack of precise control over these functions.
Innovation Solution
A computer-controlled surgical system that separates the grasping and cutting functions of a surgical instrument, allowing for independent control through distinct input devices to prevent inadvertent cutting and ensure precise tissue manipulation.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Device complexity
If a single component is used for both jaw closure and cutting, then device complexity is reduced, but the risk of inadvertent cutting increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent divides the previously unified jaw closure and cutting functions into separate controllable functions. The jaw closure function is controlled by a first input device while the cutting function is controlled by a second input device, creating functional segmentation that prevents inadvertent cutting while maintaining structural efficiency.
Solution Approach 2:
The control system acts as an intermediary between the operator and the surgical instrument functions. It receives inputs from separate input devices and mediates which function (jaw closure or cutting) is activated, providing a safety layer that prevents direct coupling between the two functions.
2Reliability
If separate control of grasping and cutting functions is implemented, then safety is improved, but device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The control system is designed to be multi-functional, handling both jaw closure and cutting operations through a unified control architecture. This universal control system manages multiple functions without requiring completely separate control mechanisms, thereby limiting the increase in complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The control system automatically manages the coordination between jaw closure and cutting functions based on input from separate devices. It self-regulates which function is active based on the input received, reducing the need for complex mechanical interlocks or additional safety components.
3Reliability
If mechanical stop is used to prevent cutting, then safety is improved, but ease of operation deteriorates due to adjustment requirements
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces the mechanical stop system with an electronic control system that uses software logic to prevent cutting. Instead of physical adjustment of mechanical stops, the system uses digital control signals from separate input devices to enable or disable cutting function, eliminating the need for manual mechanical adjustments.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes the control parameter from physical position (mechanical stop location) to digital state (cutting function enabled/disabled). This parameter transformation allows safety control through software rather than mechanical adjustment, significantly improving ease of operation while maintaining safety.
Data Source
AI summary
A control system includes a processor communicatively coupled with first and second user-actuated input mechanisms. The processor is configured to, in response to a first input at the first user-actuated input mechanism, command a jaw mechanism of an end effector to move from an open position to an intermediate closed position within the range of motion of the jaw mechanism, and command a translating mechanism of the end effector to move from a proximal position to an intermediate position relative to the jaw mechanism. In response to a second input at the first user-actuated input mechanism, the processor is configured to command the jaw mechanism to move to the closed position, and command the translating element of the end effector to move from the intermediate position to the distal position.