Experimental evaluation of virtual needle insertion framework with enhanced haptic feedback

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 20, pp. 1643–1652

Abstract

PURPOSE: Haptic feedback could improve the efficiency of needle insertion procedures by providing surgeons with enhanced sensing and guiding capabilities. A framework has been developed to provide physicians with enhanced haptic feedback during CT-guided needle insertion procedures in oncology. METHODS: The physicians encountered needle-tissue interaction and guidance forces with visual feedback to accurately reach the tumor. The force feedback to users was enhanced by amplifying several parameters in the feedback model, such as tip forces and radial forces. The study evaluated the effect of multiple haptic and visual feedback algorithms on user performance in efficiently inserting the needle. In this experimental pilot study, 12 participants including three interventional radiologists engaged in five experimental scenarios simulating a needle insertion. RESULTS: The results showed that enhanced force feedback for tumor perception reduced tumor targeting error and trajectory deviation, compared to natural force feedback. This was also the case when tumor perception and haptic guidance were both enhanced. Additionally, real-time visual feedback and enhanced force feedback for guidance reduced the duration to finish the task significantly. Participants still preferred real-time visual feedback over enhanced haptic feedback cues. CONCLUSIONS: On average, small tumors (around 3mm in diameter) can be successfully targeted with enhanced haptic feedback in the radial and axial directions. Additionally, critical regions, such as veins within the liver, can be avoided more effectively as users maintain the desired trajectory with greater accuracy.

Authors 8

1. Mostafa Selim corresponding

   University of Twente

   Affiliation as printed

   Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. m.s.selim@utwente.nl

2. Lars Eisenburger Aachen Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

3. Tom H. Dijkhuis Aachen Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

4. Martijn Van Dam Aachen Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

5. Alexander Broersen Aachen Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

6. Douwe Dresscher

   University of Twente

   Affiliation as printed

   Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

7. Jouke Dijkstra Aachen Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

8. Momen Abayazid

   Radboud University Medical Center · University of Twente

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

   Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands