Patent Grant
8624537
NOT APPLICABLE
The present invention generally provides improved surgical and robotic devices, systems, and methods.
Minimally invasive medical techniques are aimed at reducing the amount of extraneous tissue which is damaged during diagnostic or surgical procedures, thereby reducing patient recovery time, discomfort, and deleterious side effects. Millions of surgeries are performed each year in the United States. Many of these surgeries can potentially be performed in a minimally invasive manner. However, only a relatively small number of surgeries currently use these techniques due to limitations in minimally invasive surgical instruments and techniques and the additional surgical training required to master them.
Minimally invasive telesurgical systems for use in surgery are being developed to increase a surgeon's dexterity as well as to allow a surgeon to operate on a patient from a remote location. Telesurgery is a general term for surgical systems where the surgeon uses some form of remote control, e.g., a servomechanism, or the like, to manipulate surgical instrument movements rather than directly holding and moving the instruments by hand. In such a telesurgery system, the surgeon is provided with an image of the surgical site at the remote location. While viewing typically a three-dimensional image of the surgical site on a suitable viewer or display, the surgeon performs the surgical procedures on the patient by manipulating master control input devices, which in turn control the motion of robotic instruments. The robotic surgical instruments can be inserted through small, minimally invasive surgical apertures to treat tissues at surgical sites within the patient, often the trauma associated with accessing for open surgery. These robotic systems can move the working ends of the surgical instruments with sufficient dexterity to perform quite intricate surgical tasks, often by pivoting shafts of the instruments at the minimally invasive aperture, sliding of the shaft axially through the aperture, rotating of the shaft within the aperture, and/or the like.
The servomechanism used for telesurgery will often accept input from two master controllers (one for each of the surgeon's hands) and may include two or more robotic arms or manipulators. Mapping of the hand movements to the image of the robotic instruments displayed by the image capture device can help provide the surgeon with accurate control over the instruments associated with each hand. In many surgical robotic systems, one or more additional robotic manipulators are included for moving an endoscope or other image capture device, additional surgical instruments, or the like.
While the new robotic surgical systems and devices have proven highly effective and advantageous, still further improvements would be desirable. For example, when moving the surgical instruments within a minimally invasive surgical site, robotic surgical manipulators may exhibit a significant amount of movement outside the patient, particularly when pivoting instruments about minimally invasive apertures. As the instruments may independently pivot about their associated apertures at the same time, the robotic manipulators disposed outside the patient may sometimes collide with each other (or with other structures or personnel). Additionally, set-up of the surgical robotic system in preparation for surgery can be challenging, and re-configuring the system to access different tissues of the patient during different phases of a procedure can be inconvenient.
For these and other reasons, it would be advantageous to provide improved devices, systems, and methods for surgery, robotic surgery, and other robotic applications. It would be particularly beneficial if these improved technologies provided a faster and easier set-up, and/or inhibited collisions of the robotic devices during use. Ideally, these improvements would be provided without significantly increasing the size, mechanical complexity, or costs of these systems, and while maintaining or improving their dexterity.
The present invention generally provides improved robotic and/or surgical devices, systems, and methods. In many embodiments, the invention will employ highly configurable surgical robotic manipulators. These manipulators, for example, may have more degrees of freedom of movement than the associated surgical end effectors have within a surgical workspace. The present invention will often include a processor configured by software instructions to calculate a motion of the robotic linkage that includes pivoting a shaft of the manipulator linkage about an aperture site hence the notion of software centering. The joints of the robotic manipulators supporting the end effectors can allow the manipulator to move throughout a range of different configurations for a given end effector position, in some cases even when constraining lateral movement of the shaft from the aperture site so as to avoid injury to the adjacent tissues. The processor can take advantage of such manipulators to drive the manipulators to configurations which inhibit collisions involving one or more moving robotic structures. Set-up of such highly configurable robotic manipulators can be facilitated by processors which drive one or more joints of the manipulators while the manipulator is being positioned manually by the system operator (or by some other external interaction), with the joints optionally being driven in response to movements of other joints along the kinematic chain of the manipulator. Embodiments can adjust a center of pivotal motion of the manipulator in response to patient breathing and/or movement, in some cases by sensing forces applied between the manipulator and the tissues along the aperture site. Refined robotic structures for use in minimally invasive surgical applications and other applications are also provided, along with related robotic methods.
In one aspect of the present invention, a redundant degrees of freedom (RDOF) surgical robotic system with manipulate input is provided. The RDOF surgical robotic system comprises a manipulator assembly, an input device, and a processor. In response to a command to effect a desired movement of the end effector as received by the input device, the manipulator assembly manipulates a distal end effector relative to a proximal base. The manipulator has a plurality of joints providing sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for an end effector position. The processor couples the input device to the manipulator assembly and may be configured to operate in different modes. In the end effector manipulation mode, the processor determines movements of the joints in response to the command so as to move the end effector with the desired movement. In the clutch mode, the processor drives at least one of the joints in response to an external articulation of another joint of the manipulator assembly. The clutch mode may be a pose clutch mode, an instrument clutch mode, or a port clutch mode.
In another aspect of the present invention, a RDOF software centering surgical robotic system is provided. The RDOF software centering surgical robotic system comprises a processor, an input device, a manipulator, and a surgical instrument. The surgical instrument has a proximal end, a distal end effector suitable for insertion into a patient, and an intermediate portion therebetween. The manipulator supports the proximal end of the instrument and is therefore capable of moving/controlling the instrument from outside the patient. Between the manipulator and the instrument, there are a plurality of driven joints providing sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for an end effector position when the intermediate portion of the end effector passes through an access site. The input device receives a command to effect a desired end effector's movement. The processor couples the input device to the manipulator. In response to the commanded movement, the processor determines movements of the joints so that the intermediate portion of the instrument is within the access site during the end effector's desired movement.
In one embodiment, the movements of the joints as determined by the processor may also be designed to inhibit manipulator collision. In another embodiment, the movements of the joints as determined by the processor may be designed to drive the manipulator to desired combinations of joint states that achieve the underconstrained primary solution and a secondary control task. In yet another embodiment, the movements of the joints as determined by the processor may be designed to inhibit movement of a pivotal center of the intermediate portion of the instrument in response to a port stiffness factor. In yet another embodiment, the movements of the joints as determined by the processor comply with a priority task selected from a priority list. In yet another embodiment, the RDOF software centering surgical robotic system further include a sensor system to indicate to the processor a position of the access site and/or a reactive force between the intermediate portion of the instrument and the access site aperture.
In yet another aspect of the present invention, a multi-manipulator RDOF surgical robot with collision avoidance capability is provided. The multi-manipulator RDOF surgical robot comprises a first manipulator assembly, a second manipulator assembly, an input device, and a processor. The first manipulator assembly has a first end effector and a plurality of joint states for one first end effector position. The second manipulator assembly has a second end effector and has the capability to transmit state signals indicating movement of the second manipulator assembly. The input device receives an input for a first desired movement of the first end effector. The processor is coupled to the input, the first manipulator assembly, and the second manipulator assembly. The processor determines a movement of the first manipulator assembly in response to the input but with the second manipulator assembly state signals being taken into consideration so as to inhibit collisions between the manipulator assemblies. Using the determined movement, the processor controls the first end effector to effect the first desired movement.
In yet another aspect of the present invention, a surgical robotic manipulator with an upper arm roll is provided. The surgical robotic manipulator comprises a moveable surgical instrument holder, a base which is positionable near a workspace, and an arm assembly which is pivotally coupled between the base and instrument holder. The arm assembly includes a first link having a first axis, a second link having a second axis, a pivotal arm joint coupled between the first link and the second link to vary an angle between the first axis and the second axis, and a first roll joint between the base and the pivotal arm joint. The first roll joint has an arm roll axis extending along the first axis.
A further understanding of the nature and advantages of the present invention will become apparent by reference to the remaining portions of the specification and drawings.
The present invention generally provides improved surgical and robotic devices, systems, and methods. The invention is particularly advantageous for use with surgical robotic systems in which a plurality of surgical tools or instruments will be mounted on and moved by an associated plurality of robotic manipulators during a surgical procedure. The robotic systems will often comprise telerobotic, telesurgical, and/or telepresence systems that include processors configured as master-slave controllers. By providing robotic systems employing processors appropriately configured to move manipulator assemblies with articulated linkages having relatively large numbers of degrees of freedom, the motion of the linkages can be tailored for work through a minimally invasive access site. The large number of degrees of freedom may also allow a processor to position the manipulators so as to inhibit interference or collisions between these moving structures, and the like.
The robotic manipulator assemblies described herein will often include a robotic manipulator and a tool mounted thereon (the tool often comprising a surgical instrument in surgical versions), although the term “robotic assembly” will also encompass the manipulator without the tool mounted thereon. The term “tool” encompasses both general or industrial robotic tools and specialized robotic surgical instruments, with these later structures often including an end effector which is suitable for manipulation of tissue, treatment of tissue, imaging of tissue, or the like. The tool/manipulator interface will often be a quick disconnect tool holder or coupling, allowing rapid removal and replacement of the tool with an alternate tool. The manipulator assembly will often have a base which is fixed in space during at least a portion of a robotic procedure, and the manipulator assembly may include a number of degrees of freedom between the base and an end effector of the tool. Actuation of the end effector (such as opening or closing of the jaws of a gripping device, energizing an electrosurgical paddle, or the like) will often be separate from, and in addition to, these manipulator assembly degrees of freedom.
The end effector will typically move in the workspace with between two and six degrees of freedom. As used herein, the term “position” encompasses both location and orientation. Hence, a change in a position of an end effector (for example) may involve a translation of the end effector from a first location to a second location, a rotation of the end effector from a first orientation to a second orientation, or a combination of both. When used for minimally invasive robotic surgery, movement of the manipulator assembly may be controlled by a processor of the system so that a shaft or intermediate portion of the tool or instrument is constrained to a safe motion through a minimally invasive surgical access site or other aperture. Such motion may include, for example, axial insertion of the shaft through the aperture site, rotation of the shaft about its axis, and pivotal motion of the shaft about a pivot point adjacent the access site, but will often preclude excessive lateral motion of the shaft which might otherwise tear the tissues adjacent the aperture or enlarge the access site inadvertently. Some or all of such constraint on the manipulator motion at the access site may be imposed using mechanical manipulator joint linkages which inhibit improper motions, or may in part or in full be imposed using robotic data processing and control techniques. Hence, such minimally invasive aperture-constrained motion of the manipulator assembly may employ between zero and three degrees of freedom of the manipulator assembly.
Many of the exemplary manipulator assemblies described herein will have more degrees of freedom than are needed to position and move an end effector within a surgical site. For example, a surgical end effector that can be positioned with six degrees of freedom at an internal surgical site through a minimally invasive aperture may in some embodiments have nine degrees of freedom (six end effector degrees of freedom—three for location, and three for orientation—plus three degrees of freedom to comply with the access site constraints), but will often have ten or more degrees of freedom. Highly configurable manipulator assemblies having more degrees of freedom than are needed for a given end effector position can be described as having or providing sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for an end effector position in a workspace. For example, for a given end effector position, the manipulator assembly may occupy (and be driven between) any of a range of alternative manipulator linkage positions. Similarly, for a given end effector velocity vector, the manipulator assembly may have a range of differing joint movement speeds for the various joints of the manipulator assembly.
The invention provides robotic linkage structures which are particularly well suited for surgical (and other) applications in which a wide range of motion is desired, and for which a limited dedicated volume is available due to the presence of other robotic linkages, surgical personnel and equipment, and the like. The large range of motion and reduced volume needed for each robotic linkage may also provide greater flexibility between the location of the robotic support structure and the surgical or other workspace, thereby facilitating and speeding up setup. Hence, while the most immediate applications for the present invention may include telesurgical systems, the structures, devices, and systems described herein may also find applications in a wide variety of other telerobotic and robotic applications.
The term “state” of a joint or the like will often herein refer to the control variables associated with the joint. For example, the state of an angular joint can refer to the angle defined by that joint within its range of motion, and/or to the angular velocity of the joint. Similarly, the state of an axial or prismatic joint may refer to the joint's axial position, and/or to its axial velocity. While many of the controllers described herein comprise velocity controllers, they often also have some position control aspects. Alternative embodiments may rely primarily or entirely on position controllers, acceleration controllers, or the like. Hence, so long as the movements described are based on the associated calculations, the calculations of movements of the joints and movements of an end effector described herein may by performed using a position control algorithm, a velocity control algorithm, a combination of both, and/or the like.
Embodiments of the invention may include a processor which is configured to take advantage of the degrees of freedom of a manipulator structure for a plurality of tasks, goals, or purposes. When used with highly configurable manipulators, these processors may have joint controller programming instructions or code which allows them to derive generally suitable joint commands that could be used for one control task, such as moving the end effector to a desired position. However, as the manipulators may have more degrees of freedom than are needed to accomplish this task, the solution generated by the joint controller will often be underconstrained. In other words, one joint controller of the processor will often calculate a range of joint positions and/or relationships, any of which could result in the desired end effector position in space.
Mathematically, the controller may perform at least some of the calculations of the joint commands using vectors and/or matrices, some of which may have elements corresponding to configurations or velocities of the joints. The range of alternative joint configurations available to the processor may be conceptualized as a joint space. The joint space may, for example, have as many dimensions as the manipulator has degrees of freedom, and a particular configuration of the manipulator may represent a particular point in the joint space, with each coordinate corresponding to a joint state of an associated joint of the manipulator.
When the solution calculated by a joint controller of the processor is underconstrained, the solution provided by that joint controller may represent a subset of the joint space. To identify what specific commands are to be transmitted to the joints of the manipulator when a primary solution is underconstrained, additional programming instructions or code of the processor may effectively act as a subspace filter, selecting a desirable manipulator state and specific set of joint commands from the range of alternatives generated by the joint controller. Advantageously, the selected commands can be used to serve a second goal, task, or function. For example, when a primary joint controller is implemented as a velocity controller, such a filter can identify a linear combination of joint velocities that are orthogonal to the function of the primary joint controller, with these additional velocities driving the manipulator so that it passes through an aperture, toward a desired high-dexterity pose, and/or to inhibit collisions. The filter will often be configuration-dependent, so that the joint commands selected by the filter will depend on the configuration or state of the joints, manipulator, and/or workspace. In fact, the primary joint controller may also effectively comprise a filter selecting the primary solution from the overall joint space based on an input command and/or the like.
As used herein the term “overconstrained” encompass robotic systems in which a task or tasks of one or more controller will, at least at times and if maintained as rigid constraints, be capable of exceeding the available degrees of freedom of an associated manipulator assembly.
As used herein, an “external” force or articulation of a robotic system includes forces of movement of the manipulator assembly which are applied by a system user or other person, a workspace or environment, an unintended collision with another structure, and the like; but generally does not encompass robotically calculated and intended forces and movements applied by driving the manipulator of the system.
As used herein, the term “null space” is defined as the subspace S of a vector input space for a linear operator (a matrix) M, such that for any vector x in S, M·x=0.
While the processor is often described herein as having a primary joint controller and/or a configuration-dependent filter, and/or as having a first module and a second module performing functions related to such a controller and filter, the processors described herein may also have a plurality of filters (optionally being three or more filters), three or more modules for three or more different control tasks, and the like. The processor will often define one or more priority between the tasks associated with these filters and modules, thereby assigning greater weight or importance to a higher priority task than a lower priority task. In many embodiments, even when a primary solution is underconstrained, the tasks associated with the joint controller and filter(s) may combine to overconstrain the system if such priorities were absent, so that the lower-priority tasks or goals may have little or no effect on at least some manipulator movements.
Referring to
In
Surgical station 300 typically includes a plurality of robotic manipulators 304, often having three or more robotic manipulators, with the exemplary embodiment including four robotic manipulators supported by base 302. Exemplary base 302 comprises an elongate base body supported in a horizontal orientation, with manipulators 304 being distributed horizontally along the length of the base. In other embodiments, a plurality of separately positionable bases may support the manipulators.
As can be seen in
An exemplary input device 220 and surgical instrument 306 are illustrated in
Referring now to
Referring now to
The elongate shafts 14.1 of instruments 306 allow the end effectors 50 and the distal end of the shaft to be inserted distally into a surgical worksite through a minimally invasive aperture, often through an abdominal wall or the like. The surgical worksite may be insufflated, and movement of the end effectors within the patient will often be effected, at least in part, by pivoting of the instruments 306 about the location at which the shaft 14.1 passes through the minimally invasive aperture. In other words, manipulators 304 will move the proximal housing 53 outside the patient so that shaft 14.1 extends through a minimally invasive aperture location so as to help provide a desired movement of end effector 50. Hence, manipulators 304 will often undergo significant movement outside patient P during a surgical procedure.
An exemplary structure of manipulator 304 can be understood with reference to
Describing the individual links of manipulator linkage 304 as illustrated in
Distally of instrument holder 320, instrument 306 may include additional degrees of freedom. Actuation of the degrees of freedom of the instrument will often be driven by motors of the manipulator, and alternative embodiments may separate the instrument from the supporting manipulator structure at a quickly detachable instrument holder/instrument interface so that one or more joints shown here as being on the instrument are instead on the interface, or vice versa. In other words, the interface between the instrument and manipulator may be disposed more proximally or distally along the kinematic chain of the manipulator assembly (which may include both the instrument and manipulator). In the exemplary embodiment, instrument 306 includes a rotational joint J8 proximally of the pivot point PP, which generally is disposed at the site of a minimally invasive aperture. A distal wrist of the instrument allows pivotal motion of end effector 50 about instrument wrist joint axes J9, J10. An angle α between end effector jaw elements may be controlled independently of the end effector location and orientation.
Referring now to
One of the challenges of working with the highly configurable manipulator assembly of
So as to facilitate setting up of the manipulator assembly 502 and/or manipulator 504 for a surgical procedure (or reconfiguring the manipulator assembly for accessing a different tissue of the patient), the controller 210 of workstation 200 (see
Referring now to
Referring now to
Three exemplary clutch modes (and some or all of their associated effective degrees of freedom) can be understood by reference to
As can be understood by comparing
In
Port and other clutch modes might provide a variety of alternative clutch degrees of freedom, such as maintaining a desired pose of the manipulator assembly with ranges of motions maximized for the manipulator assembly configuration throughout translational and/or rotational movement, and the like. A variety of alternative coordinated manual and driven joint movements may be employed, with one, some, or all of the joints of the manipulator assembly being driven robotically in response to manual articulation of one, some, or all of the joints. External joint articulation may be sensed or monitored using joint state sensors of the robotic system.
Additional aspects of a port clutch mode may be provided, either instead of or in combination with those described above. For example, once the manipulator assembly is aligned with the desired aperture site, articulation of port clutch input 516a (such as by releasing the input button) can prompt the processor to identify a location of the port. Link 518 (which supports the port clutch input 516a) will often be coupleable to the instrument shaft by an axial joint, and a distal end of link 518 (and/or a cannula affixed thereto) will often be positioned at or adjacent to desired aperture site 514b. The processor can determine the location of the distal end of link 518 and or cannula from the joint states of the manipulator in response to actuation of the port clutch input 516a, and can thereafter use this information to calculate motions of the instrument shaft so that it pivots within desired aperture site 514b. Hence, the manipulator assembly in the port clutch mode can be used as an input for the aperture site location.
An exemplary instrument clutch mode can be understood with reference to
Yet another clutch mode, here a pose clutch mode, can be understood with reference to
Pose clutch input 516c can provide a relatively simple approach to allow manual adjustment of the pose. The system processor will often maintain the port and/or end-effector constraints when the manipulator assembly is in a pose clutch mode, but may not apply any pose constraint. Backdriveable manipulator assemblies may benefit from a gravity compensation system (hardware and/or software) while in pose clutch mode, and such a pose clutch mode may allow manual adjustment of the pose without sensing forces (for example) between the base and the cannula. In pose clutch mode, the null space could be velocity controlled, and may not be position controlled.
While exemplary clutch inputs 516a, 516b, and/or 516c may provide advantages in simplicity of implementation, ease of understanding of the various clutch modes, and the like, a variety of other clutch mode user interfaces might also be employed. For example, manipulator assemblies having systems capable of indicating forces applied to a cannula, an end effector, or the like, a buttonless haptic clutch user interface might be implemented. Rather than pushing a button to alter a mode of the processor, the user might manually articulate the manipulator assembly by applying haptic threshold-exceeding forces against appropriate structures of the manipulator assembly. The processor may counteract forces below an appropriate haptic threshold, but may treat external articulations exceeding the threshold as an input into the manipulator assembly, for example, by prioritized saturation of the end-effector, port, and/or pose constraints so that the system conforms to the external articulation.
Note that the saturation will generally not involve exceeding any hardware capabilities of the manipulator assembly, but may instead be implemented in software. For example, a processor can be configured to determine that a predetermined force threshold has been exceeded in a lateral direction on the cannula so as to indicate that complying with a change in the port location (and hence the pivotal center for future end effector movements) is appropriate. The port position could be maintained unless the forces applied at the cannula exceeds the threshold. The external articulation of the manipulator assembly might be induced by a system operator intentionally trying to change the port position, or by the patient's body wall such as when the patient moves or is repositioned on the table. In either case, if external articulation forces against the manipulator exceed the threshold value, the processor could allow the port to be moved to a new position, optionally while constraining manipulator movement to a desired port-clutch mode as described above. When forces dropped below the threshold, the processor could maintain the new port position.
A similar haptic force threshold could be applied to an instrument clutch mode, particularly given a force sensing system capable of sensing joint torques. In fact, a haptic force threshold instrument clutch could be implemented on a mechanically constrained remote pivotal center robotic system. In either case, backdriving of the manipulator using external forces exceeding the threshold would cause the processor to modify the set point of the end effector so as to maintain the new position, rather than returning the instrument to the prior position. Such instrument clutching may be most useful if implemented with a force sensing system capable of distinguishing between forces applied within the body and forces applied outside the body. Instrument clutching might then only occur if forces applied to the manipulator outside the body exceeded the threshold.
The use of haptic force thresholds or haptic wells for altering processor mode may be combined with processors configured to (typically using software code) prioritize controller tasks such as maintaining port position, end-effector position, and pose, optionally in that in priority order. Such force thresholds (and the other processor control tasks described herein) may be included in systems that implement the controller priorities using prioritized actuator torque saturation. Force thresholds may also be embodied using processors which drive manipulators according to a primary solution and a secondary control task having a priority therebetween, as described herein. Optionally, the primary priority may comprise holding the port position, and the secondary priority may comprise maintaining end-effector position. A tertiary priority may comprise maintaining pose.
Referring now to
Referring now to
In the embodiment of
Referring now to
In broad mathematical terms, both the primary joint controller of first module 544 and the configuration dependent filter of second module 546 may comprise filters used by processor 542 to route control authority for linear combinations of joints to the service of one or more surgical goals or tasks. If we assume that X is the space of joint motion, F(X) might be a filter giving control over the joints to i) provide a desired end effector movement, and ii) provide pivotal motion of the instrument shaft at the aperture site. Hence, the primary joint controller of first module 544 may comprise filter F(X). Conceptually, (1−F−1F)(X) could describe a configuration dependent subspace filter giving control actuation authority to the linear combination of joint velocities that are orthogonal to serving the goal of the primary joint controller (in this example, end effector movement and pivotal instrument shaft motion). Hence, this configuration dependent filter could be used by the second module 546 of controller 542 to service a second goal, such as maintaining a desired pose of the manipulator assembly, inhibiting collisions, or the like. Both filters may be further sub-divided into more filters corresponding to serving more specific tasks. For example, filter F(X) could be separated into F1(X) and F2(X) for control of the end effector and control of the pivotal shaft motion, respectively, either of which may be chosen as the primary or highest priority task of the processor.
While the mathematical calculations performed by the modules may (at least in part) be similar, the robotic processors and control techniques described herein will often make use of a primary joint controller configured for a first (sometimes referred to as a primary) controller task, and a configuration dependent filter which makes use of an underconstrained solution generated by the primary joint controller for a second (sometimes referred to as secondary) task. In much of the following description, the primary joint controller will be described with reference to a first module, while the configuration dependent filter will be described with reference to a second module. Additional functions (such as additional subspace filters) and or additional modules of varying priorities may also be included.
As noted elsewhere herein, the hardware and/or programming code for performing the functions described with reference to such first and second modules may be fully integrated, partially integrated, or fully separate. Controller 542 may employ the functions of the two modules simultaneously, and/or may have a plurality of differing modes in which one or both modules are used separately or in different ways. For example, in some embodiments, first module 544 might be used with little or no influence from second module 546 during master-slave manipulations, and the second module 546 having a greater role during setup of the system when the end effector is not being driven robotically, such as during port clutching or other manual articulations of the manipulator assembly. Nonetheless, in many embodiments both modules may be active most of or all the time robotic motion is enabled. For example, by setting gains of the first module to zero, by setting xs to xs, actual, and/or by reducing the matrix rank in the inverse Jacobian controller so that it doesn't control as much and letting the configuration dependent filter have more control authority, the influence of the first module on the state of the manipulator assembly can be reduced or eliminated so as to change a mode of processor 542 from a tissue manipulator mode to a clutch mode.
Referring now to
Addressing the structure generally indicated by the first and second control modules 544, 546, and of the other components of control schematic 550 and other controllers described herein, these structures will often comprise data processing hardware, software, and/or firmware. Such structures will often include reprogrammable software, data, and the like, which may be embodied in machine-readable code and stored in a tangible medium for use by processor 210 of workstation 200 (see
Addressing the output of the controller of
When directing movement of highly configurable manipulators using the velocity controller of
The primary joint controller of the first module may employ a number of different techniques to generate such a primary solution. Mathematically, when a linear map (such as a Jacobian matrix) is many-to-one, it may be said to have a non-trivial null space, the null space typically comprising a subspace of the input space spanning one or more dimensions. For linear maps with a non-trivial null space, various pseudo inverses may be constructed to pick an acceptable inverse solution vector falling within the null space. These pseudo inverses typically have zero residual error, and the pseudo inverse solution equation can be written as
{dot over (q)}={dot over (q)}part+{dot over (q)}h
Here the pseudo inverse solution {dot over (q)} is equal to the combination of any particular solution a {dot over (q)}part added to the homogeneous solution {dot over (q)}h. Addressing the first term or particular solution, as the particular solution solves the inverse problem, we know that
{dot over (x)}J{dot over (q)}part
The least-mean-squares solution, sometimes referred to as the minimum two-norm solution, is one exemplary choice for the first term of the above general joint space solution equation, as it provides one particular solution to the Jacobian. This pseudo inverse yields the final solution vector with ∥{dot over (q)}part+{dot over (q)}h|2 minimized, and is among the alternative pseudo inverses described below. The second or homogeneous solution term of the above pseudo inverse solution equation is a mapping into the null space of Jacobian matrix J so that:
0=J{dot over (q)}h.
We can add any amount of {dot over (q)}h to {dot over (q)}part and not affect at all the motion of the mechanism regarding the control objective, {dot over (x)}. Appropriate suitable pseudo inverses will typically be designed using some sort of additional constraint to effectively determine what portion (if any) of the null space to add to a particular solution so as to fully define the solution used to calculate motor commands.
The least squares or minimum norm inverse will be indicated herein as J#. In the case where Jacobian J is underdetermined, the minimum norm inverse J# can be identified from:
J#=JT(JJT)−1
Where JT is the transpose of the Jacobian matrix. This inverse is minimum-norm in the sense that the two-norm of the resulting solution vector {dot over (q)}=J# {dot over (X)} is generally the smallest norm over the subspace of the solution vectors (remembering that there are in an infinite subspace of such vectors). For a surgical robot (or for any other robot), this generally corresponds to a solution that achieves the primary control objective (such as a master-slave movement of the end effector corresponding to that of a handle of the input device) with the smallest joint velocities, a reasonable goal for many robotic systems. It is also mathematically extremely convenient, being one of the easiest solutions to compute. However, this is not the only pseudo inverse of Jacobian J, and indeed there may be more appropriate task-based solutions, particularly when there are additional constraints or goals for movement of a system beyond (in our initial example) a commanded movement of the end effector with a minimum joint velocity. As the minimum norm inverse is just one example of a pseudo-inverse, where J−1 or J# appears herein it will often be reasonable to think of these as generally representing any pseudo-inverse, not merely the minimum norm inverse.
From the mechanisms described above, it will be understood that the desired control space {dot over (x)} may optionally be more complex than simple end effector motion, particularly in systems in which the complexity of redundant manipulator linkages is justified. Combining of controller tasks or objectives will generally make use of a configuration dependent filter of the second module. A variety of different filters may be used. In some cases, multiple objectives may be adjoined or stacked to form an augmented desired vector, particularly if the objectives are independent. For example, in the surgical robot manipulator assembly 502 illustrated in
An exemplary augmented end effector and cannula control problem formulation may comprise computing a Jacobian J for each control objective. For controlling the end effector, we have Jeff mapping {dot over (q)} to {dot over (x)}eff where eff is here used to indicate the vector and/or matrix that is associated with the end effector. For controlling the cannula, we also construct a Jacobian Jcan that maps the joint velocities of the manipulator assembly to the cannula Cartesian velocities, written {dot over (x)}can. Thus the mapping can be written:
By using the above mapping, the pseudo inverse can provide a minimum-norm solution to control both the end effector and the cannula velocities. As indicated in the control diagram of
Additional control objectives, such as driving toward a preferred collision-inhibiting pose or the like, may also be added in a similar manner. However, as such objectives are added the dimension of the desired vector space {dot over (x)} may equal or surpass that of the solution space {dot over (q)}. Here, the subspace filter of the second module may take another form.
When the dimensions of the vector space and solution space are equal, the pseudo inverse should become a true inverse, and the minimum-norm pseudo inverse conveniently reduces to the true inverse. Should more augmented solutions be sought, however, the controller and the robot will not in general have sufficient degrees of freedom to satisfy all the constraints. Such a problem is described as over-constrained, so that a new kind of pseudo inverse may be created. Such a pseudo inverse attempts to compromise in some mathematical sense, returning a solution that does not perfectly satisfy all of the constraints but may still be mathematically determined to be the best solution in some identifiable sense. For example, a residual error resulting from the imperfect inverse may be computed, such as by using the minimum two-norm pseudo inverse to return a solution that minimizes the two-norm of the residual error.
Examples of additional constraints that may be added include maintaining a pose constraint, and/or avoiding a collision with an object which may be present in the workspace. In general, if a cost function C describing these or other objectives can be written in a quadratic form, we can generally state that:
Here {dot over (x)}k is the desired control variable; {dot over (q)}j is the joint velocities of joints 1, 2, . . . n; Jkj are the Jacobians of the desired control variable for each joint, and r is the residual error appropriate for our quadratic cost function C. The partial derivatives can generally be taken and set equal to zero, allowing us to solve for a two-norm or least squares solution:
Hence, taking partial derivatives of a quadratic cost function with the appropriate Jacobian matrix can lead to the minimum norm solution, regardless of the number of constraints. Where the system is over-constrained, the resulting solution has a minimum cost function in which the norm of r is minimized. If the system is under-constrained, the resulting solution has zero cost function and solution takes the form of the minimum two-norm solution, so that {dot over (q)}optional=JT(JJT)−1{dot over (x)}.
As a simple example of an augmented controller, we can control a joint to maintain a pose using the above framework by creating a desired control variable {dot over (x)}k and making it identical to a selected joint {dot over (q)}j. We then write an augmented controller as described above, but here controlling the selected joint's desired velocity to be equal to zero. The augmented Jacobian can in this example be a trivial matrix with a one in the column for the selected joint. We could then close the loop around a desired joint angle, using the block diagram of
The analysis is more complex for an over-constrained system in comparison to an under-constrained system. Robots in general, and surgical robots in particular, should be designed and controlled so as to make advantageous use of all their joints. As the demands placed on the kinematic system of a robotic manipulator vary, it is not always practical or desirable to include sufficient degrees of freedom for these robotic manipulators to simultaneously perform different tasks, even if it is occasionally desirable to perform these different tasks at the same time. As a result, these systems can often be over-constrained during at least a portion of a robotic manipulation. There are several mathematical frameworks through which constraints can be added using different subspace filters. The first is augmented desired vectors, as introduced above. Some additional augmentation techniques which may be applied are discussed below, after which alternative mathematical frameworks, including at least one having advantages over augmentation, will also be described.
Along with simple combinations or augmentation of commands, a plurality of commands may optionally be combined by the controller with associated weights, for example by applying a weighted minimum norm solution. The minimum norm can be computed with respect to a set of basis vectors representing the solution space. The solution may then comprise a linear combination of those basis vectors. While basis vectors are sometimes visualized as one unit in the x direction, one unit in the y direction, etc., this is not necessarily required. For example, joints may differ significantly, with some being axial or prismatic, others being pivotal or rotational, and the like.
The use of basis vectors may be understood from a simple example, in which e1 is one degree/sec for a first motor, e2 is one degree/sec for a second motor, etc, and in which an initial minimum norm solution space is computed. This solution space could be arbitrarily weighted by instead choosing different basis vectors. For example, we could make e1 equate to ten degrees/sec for the first motor, while e2 remains one degree/sec for the second motor. A minimum norm solution will tend to make coefficients for e1 no bigger, on average, than those for e2 and the rest. Thus, this weighting approach can tend to make the first motor's velocity smaller, because of the weighting of basis functions we have chosen.
Further, one may chose e1 to be one degree/sec in the positive direction for the first motor, and one degree/sec in the positive direction for the second motor. e2 could then be one degree/sec in the positive direction for the first motor, and one degree/sec in the negative direction for the second motor. Again, we can thereby effectively change the weighting and/or the way the compromises are mapped into the space that the surgeon cares about. In general, we may wrap any transformation (it is helpful if the transformation is linear, constant, and invertible) around the optimization, as in:
Cweighted=rTWTWr,
where W is a weighting matrix, and r is the residual error. In this sense, we weight the residual error as desired, thereby helping to shape the answer.
Hence, weighting can be used to make some parts of the solution more important than others. For example, W can be made diagonal with large weights for important components and small weights for less important components of the augmented solution vector. Alternately, linear combinations of any solution components can be arbitrarily weighted.
Another technique which might be applied to derive motor commands for over constrained systems is to make use of techniques for optimization of noisy, ill-conditioned maps. All finite dimensional linear inverse problems have a condition number. This number is a measure of the skew or lopsidedness of the linear map. Technically, it is a ratio of the largest singular value of the linear map to the smallest, written
Conceptually, it describes how noise and signal interact.
If a measurement is noisy (such as the measurement of velocity of a robotic joint or a master command) and the noise is independent across joints, then it might be tempting to assume the would corrupt each solution component about equally. That is, if the desired velocity from the master, measured in the presence of noise, is {dot over (x)}k,noise={dot over (x)}k,true+GWN(μ,σ), (where μ and σ are the mean and variance of a Gaussian white noise process GWN, and are constant across the different Cartesian elements xdotk) then one might expect (albeit incorrectly) that {dot over (x)}j,noise={dot over (q)}j,noise+GWN({tilde over (μ)},{tilde over (σ)}) in which {tilde over (μ)},{tilde over (σ)} are also constant across the joints. In fact this is not so, and such an assumption would be in error—the additive noise is shaped by the action of the linear map, which adds some components together in a way that tends to build signal-to-noise ratio (“SNR”), and adds others in a way that tends to erode SNR. Consideration of the action of a poorly designed weighting matrix will clarify that this is possible. The measure of this effect is the condition number.
For robotic systems, the loss of precision associated with an increase in condition number happens when the Jacobian becomes ill conditioned, which in turn happens near singularities. As the condition number grows, the map acts more and more like its null space is growing by one or more dimension, but the effect is continuous, not discrete. Instead, a new subspace of joint (solution) vectors map almost to zero in the desired (master) vector space. Any noise, even round-off error in numeric calculations, can and often does result in phantom solutions, in which unrealistic joint velocities are commanded for minor velocities in command space, including minor contributions due to noise.
A number of subspace filter techniques can address this ill-conditioned map effect, including conditioning the solution by truncating the singular value decomposition (“SVD”) of the Jacobian, effectively forcing the nearly grown null space to grow a full dimension. The following are brief descriptions of some of these techniques, including this SVD truncation.
One technique to address an ill-conditioned map, which may be motivated by numerical approachability as much as anything else, is to reduce the condition number in a numerically tractable manner. This technique solves a problem related to the original inverse linear problem, and can be written as:
J*=JT(JJT+λ1)−1
J* may be referred to as the regularized Jacobian, and I is the identity matrix. The positive constant λ is the regularization constant. It has the effect of increasing all the singular values of the linear map by a fixed amount, √{square root over (λ)}. This reduces the condition number as a rising tide raises all boats: the original condition number
becomes the reduced condition number
The disadvantage of the regularizing inverse is that the choice of λ is not always well motivated physically. Further, it can change the solution for all components of the inverse, not just the ones that are swamped by noise.
Another subspace filter approach to improve the condition of an ill-conditioned map is Bayesian estimation, which is also referred to as maximum a posteriori estimation. In its simplest form it reduces to something equivalent to a regularizing inverse. The main concept is to find the free parameters {dot over (q)}j that maximize the a posteriori probability density function of a noisy measurement p({dot over (q)}j, {dot over (x)}1, . . . , {dot over (x)}n). Via Bayes' rule, we may write
p({dot over (q)}j,{dot over (x)}1, . . . ,{dot over (x)}n)p({dot over (x)}1, . . . ,{dot over (x)}n)=p({dot over (x)}1, . . . ,{dot over (x)}n,{dot over (q)}j)p({dot over (q)}j)
so that the optimal joint velocity vector {dot over ({tilde over (q)}j is obtained by
Here the first of the two new probability density functions (“PDFs”) is the measurement noise process, and the second is the a priori (or prior) distribution for the solution vector. It can be shown that, if the noise processes are zero mean, independent and Gaussian, and if the prior estimates on the solution are also zero mean, independent and Gaussian, then the solution may be generally written as:
{dot over ({tilde over (q)}=JT(JJT+AAT)−1{dot over (x)}
where A is a matrix formed of the variances of the measurement process divided by the variances of the prior distribution. As with a regularizing inverse, Bayesian methods change the solution. In this case, the change is physically motivated by an optimization technique meant to handle measurements in the presence of noise, and to handle the availability of prior information about the probable solution.
As a final note regarding subspace filtering of ill-conditioned maps, similar truncation methods using the singular value decomposition can be used with great effect. In particular, this approach can be applied in the control system illustrated in
A still further augmented optimization subspace filter approach which may be applied to over constrained redundant degree of freedom surgical robotic systems is constrained convex optimization. A minimum norm solution based on minimizing a quadratic form has the mathematical elegance of reducing to a system of linear equations. In general, these simultaneous linear equations may be solved rapidly and with high accuracy, and are approachable and easy to understand, and this ease of implementation certainly encourages their use. It is possible to write other optimization problem statements, including some which may be well posed and also achieve solutions almost as readily. A class of such problems is termed convex optimization, and a corresponding class of algorithms exists that yield efficient solutions, including those algorithms described by Boyd and Vandenberghe.
In addition to (or as an alternative from) the methods described above, controllers of surgical robotic systems having redundant degrees of freedom might also benefit from mathematical approaches for addressing constraints that respect priority. The above discussion has largely centered on optimization of a problem where constraints are imposed using augmented optimization. However, there may be differences in importance between a central, main control problem and any desirable, but not necessarily required solutions that we can add in. Several mathematical mechanisms are introduced below for making constraints soft, so that they fold back or can be relaxed gracefully as the main control problem gets harder, employing more of the degrees of freedom of the system. An example of a soft constraint would be to maintain an elbow or joint apex of a manipulator pointing up, as described above regarding
One way to establish a system having a plurality of constraints, tasks, or goals with priorities therebetween is to construct the secondary task as an augmented part of the solution, per the discussion above. We can then use a weighting matrix to reduce the importance of the secondary constraint as compared to that of the primary task. We can also adjust this weighting matrix during use so that the weighting is neutral when the robot is in its sweet spot, while the weighting might exert a very strong clamp on any augmented solution (making the secondary constraint contribute almost nothing to the final solution) as the difficult region was approached. It is also possible to turn on and off the weighting altogether, so as to achieve a discrete switch that respects priority. Similar techniques may be used for the regularized solution and the Bayesian approach. For example, the parameter λ, as well as the prior distribution, may be tuned in a configuration dependent manner.
An alternative mathematical approach which can allow a control system to implement a plurality of constrains wherein the constraints have a priority therebetween is sometimes referred to as the projector method. These advantageous methods generally make use of matrix projection to add constraints, and can be used instead of and/or in addition to the augmentation methods described above.
Referring once again to the block diagram of
P=1−Jeff−1Jeff
where J1eff is any pseudoinverse appropriate for use.
Now consider any task that can be written as a linear controller of rates with a position feedback, such as the remote center cannula motion task described above. The Jacobian can be formed as before, and the joint velocities responsible for achieving the task may be computed (for example) as:
{dot over (q)}can=Jcan#{dot over (x)}can.
The proposed rates for the cannula task are projected so as to have no effect on the rates for the end effector tasks, and then added to the end effector task so as to generate the virtual or proposed solution:
{dot over (q)}v={dot over (q)}+P{dot over (q)}can.
In general, one may write any secondary task (such as the software center motion of the manipulator) so that its projected Jacobian has authority only over those linear combinations of joints that are in the null space of the primary task (such as Jeff) by projecting the secondary task Jacobian (in our example Jcan) through the projector P prior to finding the secondary task manipulator movements ({dot over (q)}can). These calculations may be made recursive, and additional details regarding applicable mathematical calculation techniques have been described by Sicilliano and Slotine.
In addition to the specific projector method examples described above, similar projectors may be employed for a wide variety of uses within robotic and/or surgical master-slave controllers. The projectors developed above are powerful and may be used throughout the controller to give a directed mechanism for controlling certain degrees of freedom in certain ways. For example, to the right of “J−1” in the block diagram of
Still further secondary tasks may be performed using projection, augmentation, and/or other methods, including some or all of the robotic manipulations and/or set up methods described above. The generation of secondary tasks to perform collision avoidance described herein and elsewhere in the literature (see Sicilliano and Slotine and references cited thereby) can, for example, be revised so as to inhibit collisions between two simultaneously moving manipulator assemblies. One solution will use the general formalism of augmented tasks to generate rate controllers, as discussed above.
Additional modified control approaches may be implemented for other operation modes. For example, to lock an arm or manipulator assembly, or a subset of the degrees of freedom of such a structure (see clutching below), we can deliberately clamp some or all of the output vector of the first module 544 to zero. To re-establish master-slave following, we release the clamp, preferably after satisfying elementary matching conditions to rule out jump discontinuities in the input command.
Using the control algorithms described above, we can also now understand how to clutch a subset of joints or a subspace of the velocity space so as to provide an instrument clutch and/or a port clutch mode. In a minimally invasive robotic surgical system, an instrument clutch mode will generally allow manual articulation of the manipulator assembly with limited degrees of freedom. For example, when removing and replacing a first instrument with a second instrument having a different surgical end effector, an assistant may want to be able to manually move the manipulator assembly so as to advance and retract the instrument through the access site, to pivot the instrument about the access site to orient and position the new end effector, and the like. These desired clutch degrees of freedom will often not be aligned with the degrees of freedom of the mechanical joints of the system, so that simply releasing one or more joints might allow undesired or even dangerous movement of the manipulator system. Such instrument replacement clutching might be facilitated, however, if the system inhibited mathematically described motions of the manipulator assembly, such as lateral movement of a shaft or canula inserted into the access site by generating and using a projector matrix or one of the augmented solutions described above in second module 546 so as to drive one or more joints in response to manual movement of the manipulator assembly. Similarly, a port clutch mode may allow the canula or access site to be moved (and optionally to identify the new access site location when the move is completed), but may maintain an orientation and/or pose of some or all of the manipulator assembly during manual movement.
If the clutched degrees of freedom of the slave manipulator linkage coincide with one or more joint degrees of freedom (that is, if some joints are locked and some joints are free to move in the clutch mode), then clutching is direct: one simply turns off the controller for those joints that are free to move. However, it will often be advantageous to clutch joints in a dependent way, where motion of one joint is linked by the controller to motion of at least one other joint so that they can be manually articulated together as a single degree of freedom. This may be achieved by driving at least one joint of a robotic manipulator assembly in response to external articulation of at least one other joint. The controller can effect this motion, which will often be different than any degree of freedom of the mechanical system, by defining any desired arbitrary linear combination of rates that can be treated as a single degree of freedom that the operator may manipulate, optionally while some or all of the other mechanical degrees of freedom remain locked. This general concept includes port clutching, instrument clutching, elbow clutching (in which an intermediate elbow is allowed to move, for example, from an upward oriented apex configuration around to a laterally oriented apex configuration while movement at the end effector remains inhibited), and other clutching modes. Normal joint-by-joint clutching falls out as a special case.
Giving one example of a controller system to effect clutching that can again be understood with reference to
Plock=Jlock#Jlock;Pfree=1−Plock.
If this projector is inserted in the path after block “544 (J−1)” in the block diagram, then those velocities are hidden from the controller.
If such a projector is implemented while the arm is following, the arm will still attempt to follow but that linear combination of joints will not have a command. Moreover, should that linear combination of joints happen to move (as back-driven by the operator or the like), the controller will be blind to it and will not correct it.
Still further tasks or goals of the system may be implemented using the controller techniques described herein. Adaptive filtering and learning of a pivotal access site location from instrument movements are described below. Additionally, haptic constraints may be implemented using another variation on these techniques.
Regarding haptic constraints, it is often useful to provide cues to the operator during the manipulation of the slave arm via the master input device. For example, it may be desirable to indicate to the operator to keep away from suboptimal configurations that will cause controllability problems later. One simple method to provide such haptic constraints is to implement a joint limit technique. Another method is to turn on a one-sided servo whenever a threshold is crossed. This can be done using any of the projector or augmentation methods above.
A one-sided servo would often push back toward or away from a control point if the sensors indicate that the threshold is crossed and motion is further in the wrong direction. A velocity that is parallel to the boundary can be described for every point along the boundary. A dot product of the velocity vector and the threshold then indicates whether the operator is moving toward or away from the boundary, and the projection in the wrong direction is resisted. This can all be done with the above-described projector operators and a comparison with zero.
Referring now to
The coordinate frame attached to the cannula is designated Ocan in
Given the manipulator assembly geometry and position and sensing of Cannula forces, control laws can move the cannula position in response to reaction forces at the cannula. One example of such a control law is to set a commanded cannula Cartesian force to zero. The controller will then try to move the manipulator assembly such that the resulting Cartesian force on the cannula is minimized. It is also possible to set a nonzero commanded cannula force, e.g., 5 lbs in the positive Z cannula direction to have the arm help retract the cannula from the patient. This can also be achieved using the same controller.
A representative controller 570 for driving the manipulator assembly 560 in response to motion of the minimally invasive access site is shown in
Hybrid controller module 584 accepts command and actual slave position and velocity signals, along with filtered cannula force error signals, and creates joint motor torque signals. The dynamics of the software center manipulator assembly are shown as 586, which interact with the dynamics of the patient environment 588.
Reference is now made to
Referring to
After each movement of the end effector an angular movement of the instrument ΔΘ can be computed by taking the arcsin of the cross-product of the first and second unit vectors Uo and U1 of the instrument in accordance with the following line equations Lo and L1.
ΔΘ=arc sin([T])
T=Uo×U1
where:
T=a vector which is a cross-product of unit vectors Uo and U1.
The unit vector of the new instrument position U1 may again be determined using the position sensors and the transformation matrix described above. If the angle Δθ is greater than a threshold value, then a new pivot point may be calculated and Uo set to U1. As shown in
xo=Mx0·Zo+Cxo
yo=Myo·Zo+Cyo Lo
x1=Mx1·Z1+Cx1
y1=My1·Z1+Cy1 L1
where:
The slopes may be computed using the following algorithms:
Mxo=Uxo/Uzo
Myo=Uyo/Uzo
Mx1=Ux1/Uz1
My1=Uy1/Uz1
Cx0=Pox−Mx1·Poz
Cy0=Poy−My1·Poz
Cx1=P1x−Mx1·P1z
Cy1=P1y−My1·P1z
where:
To find an approximate pivot point location PP, the pivot points of the instrument in the first orientation Lo (pivot point Ro) and in the second orientation L1 (pivot point R1) can be determined, and the distance half way between the two points Ro and R1 is computed and stored as the pivot point Rave of the instrument. The pivot point Rave is determined by using the cross-product vector T.
To find the points Ro and R1 the following equalities can be set to define a line with the same orientation as the vector T that passes through both Lo and L1.
tx=Tx/Tz
ty=Ty/Tz
where:
Picking two points to determine the slopes Tx, Ty and Tz (e.g. Tx=X1−xo, Ty=y1−yo and Tz=z1−z0) and substituting the line equations Lo and L1, provides a solution for the point coordinates for Ro (xo, yo, zo) and R1 (x1, y1, z1) as follows.
zo=((Mx1−tx)z1+Cx1−Cxo)/(Mxo−tx))
z1=((Cy1−Cyo)(Mxo−tx)−(Cx1−Cxo)(Myo−ty))((Myo−ty)(Mx1−tx)−(My1−ty)(Mxo−tx))
yo=Myo·zo+Cyo
y1=My1·z1+Cy1
xo=Mxo·zo+Cxo
x1−Mx1z1+Cx1
The average distance between the pivot points Ro and R1 can be computed with the following equation and can be stored as the pivot point of the instrument.
Rave=((x1+xo)/2,(y1+yo)/2,(z1+zo)/2
The pivot point location can be regularly continually updated with the above described calculations.
Referring now to
In short, the above descriptions enable the pivot (center) point to be determined/estimated through software. By having the capability to compute software pivot points, different modes characterized by the compliance or stiffness of the system can be selectively implemented. More particularly, different system modes over a range of pivot points/centers (i.e., ranging from one have a passive pivot point to one having a fixed/rigid pivot point) can be implemented after an estimate pivot point is computed. For example, in a fixed pivot implementation, the estimated pivot point can be compared to a desired pivot point to generate an error output which can be used to drive the instrument's pivot to the desired location. Conversely, in a passive pivot implementation, while the a desired pivot location may not be an overriding objective, an estimated pivot point can be used for error detection and consequently safety because changes in estimated pivot point locations may indicate that the patient has been moved or a sensor is malfunctioning thereby giving the system an opportunity to take corrective action.
The interaction between the moving instrument and the tissue of the minimally invasive aperture may be determined at least in part by the processor, the processor optionally allowing the compliance or stiffness of the system to be changed throughout a range extending from a passive pivot point to a fixed pivot point. At the passive end of the passive/rigid range, the proximal end of the instrument may be moved in space while the motors of the instrument holder wrist joint apply little or no torque, so that the instrument acts effectively like it is coupled to the manipulator or robotic arm by a pair of passive joints. In this mode, the interaction between the instrument shaft and the tissue along the minimally invasive aperture induces the pivotal motion of the instrument about the pivot point PP. If the surgical instrument was not inserted into the minimally invasive aperture or otherwise constrained, it may point downward under the influence of gravity, and movement of the manipulator arm would translate the hanging instrument without pivotal motion about a site along the instrument shaft. Toward the rigid end of the passive/rigid range, the location of the minimally invasive aperture may be input or calculated as a fixed point in space. The motors associated with each joint of the kinematic chain disposed proximal of the pivot point may then drive the manipulator so that any lateral force laterally against the shaft at the calculate pivot point results in a reaction force to keep the shaft through the pivot point. Such a system may, in some ways, behave similar to mechanically constrained remote center linkages. Many embodiments will fall between these two extremes, providing calculated motion which generally pivots at the access site, and which adapts or moves the pivotal center of motion within an acceptable range when the tissue along the minimally invasive access site moves, without imposing excessive lateral forces on that tissue.
It should be understood that many of the calculations described herein regarding the controller architecture of
The body wall and any other exogenous forces applied to the manipulator assembly can affect the motion of the pivotal center if the pivotal center is held softly by the controller. The above-described calculations for determining the remote center location can be applied if the instrument is allowed to passively pivot adjacent the interface with the manipulator, for example. As the variance of the estimates for the pivotal motion center decreases, the weighting factor or gain may be increased. Tracking of the changes in pivotal center location may allow identification of and compensation for cyclical physiological movements such as patient breathing, beating of the heart, or the like. In some embodiments, similar calculations will allow the controller to compensate for movement of the patient such as by reorienting a surgical table, repositioning a patient on the surgical table, or the like.
To provide a calculated pivotal motion of an instrument in space, regardless of whether or not the instrument is inserted through a minimally invasive aperture, the systems described herein may optionally include a modified manipulator command module 406 of controller 400 having a software center joint command calculation module 410 as illustrated in
Along with the desired end effector motion, the remote center locator 416 makes use of actual joint motion information from the slave manipulator 418. The information from manipulator 418 may comprise actual joint motions from prior end effector movements. The data may originate in the form of positions of each of the individual joints from potentiometers or the like, discrete steps of the individual joints from encoders or the like, or a wide variety of alternative motion indicators. Optionally, joint torques as detected at the joints of the manipulator may also be provided, and both joint positions and joint velocities may be transmitted to a forward kinematics module 420. The forward kinematics module 420 can calculate an observed minimally invasive aperture pivotal center location from the behavior of the slave manipulator during prior movements of the instrument.
Along with motion about a pivot point, the software center module 410 may also determine forces associated with the pivoting about the minimally invasive aperture, properties of the tissue tract (for example, the lateral or pivotal spring forces applied by the tissue tract to the instrument during movement of the instrument shaft and/or any lateral movement of the patient anatomy adjacent the aperture) and the like. Still further, properties of the observed pivotal center may also be determined. For example, the software center module 410 may determine any cyclical movements of the observed pivotal center with a physiological activity such as breathing or beating of the heart. Shifting of the pivotal center with changing pivotal angles or orientations may also be identified. For example, intercostal access to the chest cavity may result in a first pivotal center when a instrument inserted between the ribs is pivoted generally across the rib orientation, and a slightly different pivotal center when the instrument is angled along the lengths of the adjacent ribs. Tissue stiffness may also vary along the axis of the tissue tract and/or at differing distances from the tissue tract, so that pivoting of a shaft inserted through a minimally invasive aperture at a relatively small angle may result in a pivotal center which is disposed at a first point along a tissue tract extending through the abdominal wall, while increasing the angle of the shaft inserted through the same tract may shift the pivotal center axially along the tissue tract either proximally or distally.
The observed pivotal center information from the forward kinematics module 420 (along with any associated forces) may be combined with the commanded end effector motion from desired end effector calculation module 412 so as to generate a solved or desired center of the desired motion. The observed pivotal center and commanded tip motion may be combined using an adaptive filter, and the input to the inverse kinematic solver from the combination of the observed pivotal center and the commanded end effector motion may comprise a desired remote center motion 422.
In general, manipulator linkages which are not easily back driven will tend to keep a remote center location at a calculated position. Assuming the drive system of the linkage is not overpowered, the observed remote center will remain within a close proximity to the desired or calculated remote center location, with the difference between the observed center and desired center often falling within a relatively small servo error of the manipulator. However, the system may determine that the remote center should be removed to alleviate forces and/or torques applied to the manipulator structure. For example, the forces and/or torques may be applied to and measured at the cannula, for example, by reactive forces of the tissue against the cannula, by physiological movement of the patient during breathing or patient repositioning, or the like. In some embodiments, an operator may manually push on the arm to move the remote center to a new location, optionally before, during, or after transmitting a pivot center repositioning signal to the processor, such as by pushing a port clutch button. As described above, a large number of computational methods may be used to choose a new remote center based on the data provided by such manual movement of the manipulator linkage. The output of such calculations may be termed a solved center or a desired center, and will often represent an input from a system user to the processor, optionally by releasing the port clutch input when the appropriate structure along the kinematic chain of the manipulator assembly (such as a cannula) is disposed at the desired access site location.
In more easily back driven arms, a solved center or desired center may simply be a filtered version of an observed center. Such back drivable linkages lend themselves more directly to observing actual motions of the remote center and adjusting the control appropriately. As stronger or less back drivable manipulator linkages will tend to exhibit little motion of the observed center, employing a torque or force sensor to measure disturbance forces acting on the arm at the pivot center (such as a cannula force sensor) may facilitate such pivot location movement, rather than relying solely on joint torque or position measurements.
As described above, the shaft of the instrument between the end effector and the proximal instrument housing will typically extend through the minimally invasive aperture. The motion of this intermediate portion of the instrument will be calculated so that the instrument does not impose injury on the patient, but instead remains within the minimally invasive access site. Along with pivotal motion of the instrument shaft, the instrument may rotate about its shaft, and the shaft may be inserted distally or withdrawn proximally along the shaft axis.
So as to allow inverse kinematic solver 414 to calculate the joint motions to effect the commanded end effector movement while maintaining the instrument within the minimally invasive aperture site, the vector of the commanded Cartesian velocities and angular velocities of the tip of end effector may be provided from the slave vector calculator 414, the exemplary end effector vector comprising a 1×6 vector, with actuation of grip on end effector often being handled separately from the inverse kinematic computations. The desired remote center motion 422 input into the inverse kinematic solver may comprise a vector of Cartesian velocities of the pivotal center, such as a 1×3 vector. Algorithms that compute movement of the pivotal center (for example, based on measuring of forces at the pivotal center of a high impedance or rigidly driven arm) or the effective location of a pivotal center (based on observed pivotal motions using a low impedance or more passively pivoting arm) can be adjusted using these vector inputs. Hence, inverse kinematic solver 414 can be used for manipulator structures which are a combination of a compliant or passive rotational center and a more rigidly calculated rotational center.
As noted above, the manipulator/instrument linkages often have a greater number of degrees of freedom than the end effector has in the surgical workspace. Inverse kinematic solver 414 may nonetheless make use of controller schemes similar to those of more constrained mechanical systems, such as those described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,493,608, the full disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. More specifically, the use of modified inverse kinematics with a feedback tuned to correct for integrator drift may have some benefits for the joint motion calculator 410 of
Exemplary calculations performed by inverse kinematic solver 414 are illustrated in more detail in
{dot over (q)}base=W−1JT(JW−1JT)−1V
in which W is a weighting matrix and J is the Jacobian matrix. For the exemplary kinematic chain illustrated in
The exemplary arms will again often include more degrees of freedom than the combination of the degrees of freedom of the end effector in space (often 6) and the constraint of maintaining the instrument shaft at the aperture (3), so that they are underconstrained for the end effector and shaft pivoting tasks. Hence, these linkage systems may have more than 10 degrees of freedom, and their kinematic chains often define a null space or range of alternative configurations and/or joint velocities which the kinematic chain can have for a given end effector position. A projector vector P into the null space of the Jacobian matrix can be calculated as follows:
P=(I−Jrpi*J)
in which I is the identity matrix and Jrpi is the right pseudo inverse of the Jacobian matrix.
A desired set of auxiliary joint velocities qaux that minimizes one or more cost functions can then be computed, with the cost function often having a configuration which drives the manipulator away from joint range-of-motion limitations, away from singularities, free from obstacles, and the like. These auxiliary joint velocities can then be projected into the null space of the Jacobian matrix. The final velocity vector may then be calculated by adding the base and auxiliary joint velocity vectors together as follows:
{dot over (q)}={dot over (q)}base+P*{dot over (q)}aux
Referring once again to
In
So as to maintain accurate control over the surgical instruments and avoid wear or damage to the system, it will often be advantageous to configure adjacent manipulators such that collisions between the manipulators are inhibited. For example, when two manipulators are supported by one or more bases such that the manipulator arms are adjacent to each other, and when the surgical instruments supported by the manipulators are inserted through adjacent minimally invasive apertures, having the manipulators in similar configurations may lead to configurations when the manipulators move towards each other. By instead having adjacent manipulators alternate between a downward oriented apex configuration such as that illustrated in
Referring once again to
Referring now to
The kinematic structure of a manipulator assembly can affect the compactness and dexterity to a significant degree.
Regarding the segment for portion lengths of the manipulator assembly, and referring to
The useful work volume of manipulator assembly 304 is generally improved by keeping lengths L1 and L2 within about 20% of one another. If these lengths differ significantly more than that amount, volumetric holes or unreachable areas in the work volume can become problematic. Balancing lengths L1 and L2 also help to balance the angular range of motion for driving the joints J2 and J4. As the mechanical design of the joints gets significantly more complex when the range of motion increases excessively, it is generally beneficial to avoid designs involving very large ranges of motions about these pivotal joints.
Next addressing the lateral kinematic offsets, and referring here to
In the exemplary embodiment illustrated in
As illustrated in
Regarding the minimum ranges of motion for the joints of the manipulator assembly, range of motion may be enhanced by providing at least one of the minimum ranges of motion in the following table for the associated joint, preferably some of the ranges of motions in this table, and ideally all of the minimum ranges of motions (“ROM”) in the following table:
Particular benefit in the overall dexterity of the highly configurable manipulator assembly 304 is provided by attention to joints J3, sometimes referred to as upper arm roll, and J6, which is sometimes referred to as wrist pitch. In many ways, the upper arm roll joint J3 can be thought of as the redundant or extra degree of freedom of the arm. Without it, manipulator assembly 304 would work very effectively in three-dimensional space. By providing this additional degree of freedom, the arm is able to attain an infinite number of poses or configurations for a given end effector position, even while the shaft of the instrument remains constrained to pivotal motion about a minimally invasive aperture. This can allow the arm to avoid obstacles, avoid collisions with other arms, and the like. This flexibility also can be used to optimize the kinematics of the manipulator linkage so as to avoid joint limits, singularities, and the like.
When used for robotic surgical systems having a plurality of manipulator assemblies, the manipulator linkage 304 will ideally be able to invert itself from an apex oriented downward configuration to an apex oriented upward configuration and back, as illustrated in
Referring now to
Referring now to
Suitable collision sensors may employ tape switches such as those commercially available from Tape Switch Corporation of New York; flexible sensing arrays such as those developed by the University of Tokyo (including Takao Someya), and described in an article entitled “Flexible Sensors Make Robot Skin” in www.trnmag.com on Sep. 22/29, 2004; individual force sensing resistors or force sensing resistor arrays available commercially from Interlink Electronics; capaciflector active or passive capacitive sensing systems such as those developed by John Vranish at NASA-Goddard, or the like.
While the exemplary embodiments have been described in some detail for clarity of understanding and by way of example, a variety of adaptations, modifications, and changes will be obvious to those of skill in the art. Hence, the scope of the present invention is limited solely by the appended claims.
The present application is a Divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/133,423 filed May 19, 2005 (Allowed), the full disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3920972 | Corwin, Jr. et al. | Nov 1975 | A |
| 4028533 | Matsubara | Jun 1977 | A |
| 4063073 | Strayer | Dec 1977 | A |
| 4578757 | Stark | Mar 1986 | A |
| 4999553 | Seraji | Mar 1991 | A |
| 5430543 | Howard | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5513100 | Parker et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5587937 | Massie et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5632758 | Sklar | May 1997 | A |
| 5710870 | Ohm et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5737500 | Seraji et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5823980 | Kopfer | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5855583 | Wang et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5908458 | Rowe et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 6037927 | Rosenberg | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6098260 | Sarh | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6246200 | Blumenkranz et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6312435 | Wallace et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6317651 | Gerstenberger et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6331181 | Tierney et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6377011 | Ben-Ur | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6379073 | Yoo et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6400115 | Yamazoe | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6424885 | Niemeyer et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6459926 | Nowlin et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6468265 | Evans et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6493608 | Niemeyer | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6645196 | Nixon et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6678582 | Waled | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6699177 | Wang et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6763286 | Metelski | Jul 2004 | B2 |
| 6786896 | Madhani et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 7083571 | Wang et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7280633 | Cheng et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7379533 | Koertge | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7428296 | Bernhardt et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7564949 | Sattler et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7763015 | Cooper et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 8004229 | Nowlin et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8041459 | Sutherland et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 20010013764 | Blumenkranz et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010018591 | Brock et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20020082612 | Moll et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020111713 | Wang et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120363 | Salisbury et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20030018412 | Kimura | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030060927 | Gerbi et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030065311 | Wang et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030109780 | Coste-Maniere et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030139753 | Wang et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030216715 | Moll et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040034283 | Quaid, III | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040039485 | Niemeyer et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040042583 | Wackerle et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040111183 | Sutherland et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040186484 | Ryan | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20050104549 | Nishimura et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20060167440 | Cooper et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20070013336 | Nowlin et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20080037712 | Klingenbeck-Regn | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20090234444 | Maschke | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090297011 | Brunner et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100191371 | Hornung et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20110218679 | Cheng et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110264108 | Nowlin et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110264109 | Nowlin et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110264110 | Nowlin et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110264111 | Nowlin et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110264112 | Nowlin et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110270271 | Nowlin et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1234641 | Aug 2002 | EP |
| 2311149 | Sep 1997 | GB |
| 2003159674 | Jun 2003 | JP |
| WO9729690 | Aug 1997 | WO |
| 9950721 | Oct 1999 | WO |
| WO02051329 | Jul 2002 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Extended EP Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. EP10196669.5, mailed Jul. 26, 2012, 7 pages. |
| Extended European Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. EP10196664.6, mailed on Jul. 25, 2012, 7 pages. |
| Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP101996666.1, mailed on Jul. 19, 2012, 7 pages. |
| Baerlocher, P. et al., “Task Priority Formulations for the Kinematic Control of Highly Redundant Articulated Structures,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1998, pp. 323-329, vol. 1, IEEE. |
| Boyd, Stephen, “Convex Optimization,” 2004, 8 pages, Cambridge University Press. |
| English, James D. et al., “On the Implementation of Velocity Control for Kinematically Redundant Manipulators,” IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Part A, Systems and humans, 2000, pp. 618-621, vol. 30—No. 3, IEEE. |
| Espiau, Bernard et al., “Collision Avoidance for Redundant Robots with Proximity Sensors,” The Third International Symposium of Robotics Research, 1986, pp. 243-251, MIT Press. |
| Interlink Electronics, “Force Sensing Resistors for Medical Equipment, Automotive, and Musical Instruments,” 2003, 1 page, Internet: http://www.interlinkelec.com/productsgsr/fsr.htm (last visited Jul. 2003). |
| Maciejewski, Anthony A. et al., “The Singular Value Decomposition: Computation and Applications to Robotics,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 1989, pp. 63-79, vol. 8—No. 6, Sage Publications. |
| PCT/US06/17843 International Search Report, mailed Jan. 4, 2007, 6 pages. |
| PCT/US06/17843 Written Opin on of the International Search Authority, mailed Jan. 4, 2007, 9 pages. |
| Siciliano, Bruno et al., “A General Framework for Managing Multiple Tasks in Highly Redundant Robotic Systems,” Fifth International Conference of Advanced Robotics, 1991, pp. 1211-1216, IEEE. |
| Smalley, Eric, “Flexible sensors make robot skin,” Technology Research News, Sep. 22-29, 2004, 3 pages, Internet: http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/092204/Flexible—sensors—make—robot—skin%20—092204.html (last visited Dec. 17, 2004). |
| Stanford University, Dexterous Manipulation Laboratory, “The ‘Capaciflector’ Proximity Sensor”, 2005, 3 pages. Internet: http://www.cdr.stanford.edu/Touch/previous—projects/capaciflector/capaciflector.htm (last visited Jan. 5, 2005). |
| Tapeswitch Corporation, Data Sheet for Controflex Ribbon Switches, last downloaded Dec. 17, 2004, 2 pages, Internet: http://www.tapeswitch.com/nroducts/contflex,php. |
| Vertut, Jean and Phillipe Coiffet, Robot Technology: Teleoperation and Robotics Evolution and Development, English translation, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1986, vol. 3A, 332 pages. |
| European Search Report for Application No. EP10196665.3, mailed on Oct. 15, 2012, 8 pages. |
| European Search Report for Application No. EP10196670, mailed Oct. 26, 2012, 9 pages. |
| Nakamura Y., et al., “Task-Priority Based Redundancy Control of Robot Manipulators,” International Journal of Robotics Research, Sage Science Press, Thousand Oaks, US, Jun. 21, 1987, vol. 6 (2), pp. 3-15. |
| Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 25, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,519, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| European Search Report for Application No. EP10196671, mailed on Oct. 15, 2012, 7 pages. |
| Final Office Action mailed Jan. 14, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,458, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,477, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,572, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Final Office Action mailed Dec. 20, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,550, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Non-Final Office Action mailed Aug. 15, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,550, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 19, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,477, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 19, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,590, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Non-Final Office Action mailed May 29, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,458, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 30, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,590, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 31, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/175,572, filed Jul. 1, 2011. |
| Albu-Schaffer A., et al., “Cartesian Impedance Control Techniques for Torque Controlled Light-Weight Robots,” Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE, International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2002, pp. 657-663. |
| Albu-Schaffer A., et al., “Parameter Identification and Passivity Based Joint Control for a 7DOF Torque Controlled Light Weight Robot,” Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE, International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2001, vol. 3, pp. 2852-2858. |
| Da Vinci, Chirurgie-System Benutzerhandbuch, Intuitive Surgical Inc., 2004, 9 Chapters and 2 Appendixes, 260 pages. |
| Grunwald G., et al., “Programming by Touch: the Different Way of Human—Robot Interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2003, vol. 50 (4), pp. 659-666. |
| Hirzinger G., et al., “A Mechatronics Approach to the Design of Light-Weight Arms and Multifingered Hands,” Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE, International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2000, pp. 46-54. |
| Hirzinger G., et al., “On a New Generation of Torque Controlled Light-Weight Robots,” Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE, International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2001, pp. 3356-3363. |
| Howe R.D., et al., “Robotics for Surgery,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 211-240. |
| Kazanzides, Peter et al., “Force Sensing and Control for a Surgical Robot,” Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1992, Nice, France; pp. 612-617, vol. 1, IEEE. |
| Khatib O., “A Unified Approach for Motion and Force Control of Robot Manipulators: the Operational Space Formulation,” IEEE Journa of Robotics and Automation, 1987, vol. Ra-3 (1), pp. 43-52. |
| Konietschke R., et al., “A Preoperative Planning Procedure for Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Interventions,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, CURAC, 2004. |
| Konietschke R., et al., “Manipulability and Accuracy Measures for a Medical Robot in Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Conference Proceeding, in proceeding of: 9th International Symposium on Advances in Robot Kinematics(ARK), Sestri Levante, Italy, Jun. 28-Jul. 1, 2004, 8 pages. |
| Krupa A., et al., “Towards Semi-Autonomy in Laparoscopic Surgery Through Vision and Force Feedback Control,” Experimental Robotics VII, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, 2001, vol. 271, pp. 189-198. |
| Maciejewski A.A., et al., “Obstacle Avoidance for Kinematically Redundant Manipulators in Dynamically Varying Environments,” International Journal of Robotics Research, 1985, vol. 4 (3), pp. 109-117. |
| Michelin M., et al., “Dynamic Task/Posture Decoupling for Minimally Invasive Surgery Motions,” Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004, vol. 4, pp. 3625-3630. |
| Ortmaier T.J., “Motion Compensation in Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery,” 2002, 5 Chapters, 147 pages. |
| Schreiber G., “Interactive Redundant Robotics: Control of the Inverted Pendulum with Nullspace Motion,” Proceedings of the 2001, IEEE/RSJ, International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2001, pp. 158-164. |
| Schreiber G., Steuerung fur Redundante Robotersysteme: Benutzer and Aufgabenorientierte Verwendung Der Redundanz, 2004, 162 pages. (English Abstract). |
| Siciliano B., “Kinematic Control of Redundant Robot Manipulators: A Tutorial,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 1990, vol. 3 (3), pp. 201-212. |
| Yigit S., et al., “Specific Combined Control Mechanisms for Human Robot Co-Operation,” Institute for Process Control and Robotics (IPR), 2003, 6 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20110276059 A1 | Nov 2011 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 11133423 | May 2005 | US |
| Child | 13175498 | US |
