1 / 15

Robotic Arm for Minimally Invasive Surgery

Robotic Arm for Minimally Invasive Surgery. Team: Brenton Nelson, Ashley Huth, Max Michalski, Sujan Bhaheetharan BME 200/300 October 14, 2005.

jermaine-cherry
Download Presentation

Robotic Arm for Minimally Invasive Surgery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Robotic Arm for Minimally Invasive Surgery Team: Brenton Nelson, Ashley Huth, Max Michalski, Sujan Bhaheetharan BME 200/300 October 14, 2005

  2. Client:Aimen Shaaban, M.D. Assistant Professor of SurgeryUniversity of Wisconsin Medical SchoolAdvisor:Willis Tompkins, Ph.D.ProfessorDept. of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin

  3. Overview • Current Minimally Invasive Surgery Techniques • Current Problems • Problem Specifications • Proposed Designs • Future Work • Questions

  4. Background • da Vinci ii • Surgeon Console • EndoWrist Instruments • Seven degrees of motion • Mimics dexterity of hand and wrist • Motion scaling and tremor reduction • Laparoscopic grasper • 3-5mm in diameter shaft • Allows rotation about x- axis • Disposable or reusable • Variety of handles

  5. Problems with Current Instruments Laparoscopic Grasper Da Vinci ii • Price • Excessive functions • Distance from Patient • Cumbersome • Limited patient access • Set up time/training • Possibility of being outdated • Limited sense of tension and pressure • Difficult to perform certain tasks • Uncomfortable • Takes endurance to use

  6. Problem Specifications • Mimic wrist and hand movements • Simultaneously rotates graspers in all directions • Provide accurate tactile feedback • Simple operation by user • Fully operable by one hand • Maximum diameter for surgical shaft 5mm; goal 3mm.

  7. Prototype 1: Trigger Control • “Pen-click” closed clamp • Trigger for simultaneous rotation and translation • Rotation and translation about x, y, and z axis

  8. Prototype 1 (continued) • Pros • Single finger control for rotation • The • “Pen-click” clamps grasper without continuous applied pressure • Provide accurate feedback • Easy to use • Ergonomically beneficial • Cons • Not reusable • Expensive

  9. Prototype 2: Double Trigger • Trigger Clamped • Trigger rotation in y, and z-axis • Rear spin knob for rotation in x-axis

  10. Pros Simultaneously clamps and bends Ergonomic Reusable Tactile Feedback Prototype 2 (continued) • Cons • Expensive • Complex trigger mechanism, requires multiple digits

  11. Joystick translates to grasper Simultaneous rotation in x, y, and z direction Guided tracks for smooth movements Trigger mechanism Prototype 3: Joystick Control

  12. Pros Translates joystick motion to graspers Easy sewing motion Cons Lack of tactile feedback Lacks precision Thumb fatiguing Prototype 3 (continued)

  13. Design Matrix

  14. Future Work • Finalize dimensions and materials • Build Final Prototype • Test Prototype

  15. Questions?

More Related