The comparison of the process of manual and robotic positioning of the electrode performing radiofrequency ablation under the control of a surgical navigation system

Abstract

AbstractThis study is aimed at the comparison of the process of manual and robotic positioning of the electrode performing radiofrequency ablation under the control of a surgical navigation system. The main hypothesis of this experiment was that the use of a collaborative manipulator (KUKA iiwa) will allow to position the active part of the electrode relative to the center of the tumor more accurately and from the first attempt. We also monitor the stability of the electrode′s velocity during insertion and consider some advantages in ergonomics using the robotic manipulator. We use three more criteria to compare the surgeon's and robotic performance, unlike other studies, where only the target point's accuracy criterion is observed. The main idea is to examine the movement parameters of the electrode that can lead to potential patient trauma. Sphere-shaped tumor phantoms measuring 8 mm in diameter were filled with contrast and inserted in bovine livers. 10 livers were used for the robotic experiment and an equal quantity for manual surgery. The livers were encased in silicone phantoms designed to imitate the liver position in a real patient's abdominal cavity. Analysis of CT data gave the opportunity to find the entry and the target point for each tumor phantom. This data was loaded into a surgical navigation system that was used to track and record the position of the RF-electrode during the operation for further analysis. The standard deviation of points from the programmed linear trajectory totaled in the average 0.3 mm for the robotic experiment and 2.33 mm for the manual operation with a maximum deviation of 0.55 mm and 7.99 mm respectively. Standard deviation from the target point was 2.69 mm for the collaborative method and 2.49 mm for the manual method. The average velocity was 2.97 mm/s for the manipulator and 3.12 mm/s for the manual method, but the standard deviation of the velocity relative to the value of the average velocity was 0.66 mm/s and 3.05 mm/s respectively. Thus, in two criteria out of three, the manipulator is superior to the surgeon, and equality is established in one. Surgeons also noticed advantages in ergonomics performing the procedure using the manipulator. This experiment was produced as part of the work on the developing of a robotic multifunctional surgical complex. We can confirm the potential advantages of using collaborative robotic manipulators for minimally invasive surgery in case of practice for cancer treatment.