Display options
Share it on

Interface Focus. 2016 Jun 06;6(3):20150107. doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2015.0107.

Minimally disruptive needle insertion: a biologically inspired solution.

Interface focus

Alexander Leibinger, Matthew J Oldfield, Ferdinando Rodriguez Y Baena

Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering , Imperial College London , Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ , UK.

PMID: 27274797 PMCID: PMC4843620 DOI: 10.1098/rsfs.2015.0107

Abstract

The mobility of soft tissue can cause inaccurate needle insertions. Particularly in steering applications that employ thin and flexible needles, large deviations can occur between pre-operative images of the patient, from which a procedure is planned, and the intra-operative scene, where a procedure is executed. Although many approaches for reducing tissue motion focus on external constraining or manipulation, little attention has been paid to the way the needle is inserted and actuated within soft tissue. Using our biologically inspired steerable needle, we present a method of reducing the disruptiveness of insertions by mimicking the burrowing mechanism of ovipositing wasps. Internal displacements and strains in three dimensions within a soft tissue phantom are measured at the needle interface, using a scanning laser-based image correlation technique. Compared to a conventional insertion method with an equally sized needle, overall displacements and strains in the needle vicinity are reduced by 30% and 41%, respectively. The results show that, for a given net speed, needle insertion can be made significantly less disruptive with respect to its surroundings by employing our biologically inspired solution. This will have significant impact on both the safety and targeting accuracy of percutaneous interventions along both straight and curved trajectories.

Keywords: biologically inspired robotics; image correlation; minimally invasive surgery; soft tissue; tissue disruption; tool–tissue interactions

References

  1. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:1873-6 - PubMed
  2. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2012 Jan;11(1-2):245-60 - PubMed
  3. J Neural Eng. 2006 Sep;3(3):196-207 - PubMed
  4. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013 Apr;60(4):910-7 - PubMed
  5. Neurosurgery. 2005 Apr;56(4):722-32; discussion 722-32 - PubMed
  6. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014 Feb;30:50-60 - PubMed
  7. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2009 Dec;56(12):2905-16 - PubMed
  8. Med Phys. 2013 Nov;40(11):110701 - PubMed
  9. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 Nov;43(11):2794-803 - PubMed
  10. Med Eng Phys. 2013 Apr;35(4):549-54 - PubMed
  11. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010;224(6):775-88 - PubMed
  12. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016 Aug;44(8):2442-52 - PubMed
  13. Med Eng Phys. 2015 Jan;37(1):145-50 - PubMed
  14. Invest Radiol. 2001 Jun;36(6):347-53 - PubMed
  15. J Neurosci Methods. 2014 Nov 30;237:79-89 - PubMed
  16. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 28;9(4):e94919 - PubMed
  17. Eur Radiol. 2008 Sep;18(9):1761-73 - PubMed
  18. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012 Feb;6:159-65 - PubMed
  19. Urol Clin North Am. 2010 Feb;37(1):83-96, Table of Contents - PubMed
  20. Nature. 2013 May 16;497(7449):332-7 - PubMed
  21. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008;2008:5611-4 - PubMed

Publication Types