Research Papers

Design and Kinematic Optimization of a Two Degrees-of-Freedom Planar Remote Center of Motion Mechanism for Minimally Invasive Surgery Manipulators

[+] Author and Article Information
Sajid Nisar

Mechatronics Laboratory,
Mechanical Engineering and Science,
Kyoto University,
Kyoto 615-8540, Japan
e-mail: nisar.sajid.78v@kyoto-u.jp

Takahiro Endo

Department of Mechanical Engineering
and Science,
Kyoto University,
Kyoto 615-8540, Japan
e-mail: endo@me.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Fumitoshi Matsuno

Department of Mechanical Engineering
and Science,
Kyoto University,
Kyoto 615-8540, Japan
e-mail: matsuno@me.kyoto-u.ac.jp

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received July 31, 2016; final manuscript received January 16, 2017; published online March 23, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Byung-Ju Yi.

J. Mechanisms Robotics 9(3), 031013 (Mar 23, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: JMR-16-1222; doi: 10.1115/1.4035991 History: Received July 31, 2016; Revised January 16, 2017

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires four degrees-of-freedom (DOFs) (pitch, translation, yaw, and roll) at the incision point, but the widely used planar remote center of motion (RCM) mechanisms only provide one degree-of-freedom. The remaining three DOFs are achieved through external means (such as cable-pulleys or actuators mounted directly on the distal-end) which adversely affect the performance and design complexity of a surgical manipulator. This paper presents a new RCM mechanism which provides the two most important DOFs (pitch and translation) by virtue of its mechanical design. Kinematics of the new mechanism is developed and its singularities are analyzed. To achieve maximum performance in the desired workspace region, an optimal configuration is also evaluated. The design is optimized to yield maximum manipulability and tool translation with smallest size of the mechanism. Unlike the traditional planar RCM mechanisms, the proposed design does not rely on external means to achieve translation DOF, and therefore, offers potential advantages. The mechanism can be a suitable choice for surgical applications demanding a compact distal-end or requiring multiple manipulators to operate in close proximity.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Hawks, J. A. , Kunowski, J. , and Platt, S. R. , 2012, “In Vivo Demonstration of Surgical Task Assistance Using Miniature Robots,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 59(10), pp. 2866–2873. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hu, J. C. , Gu, X. , Lipsitz, S. R. , Barry, M. J. , D'Amico, A. V. , Weinberg, A. C. , and Keating, N. L. , 2009, “Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Prostatectomy,” JAMA, 302(14), pp. 1557–1564. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Verhage, R. , Hazebroek, E. , Boone, J. , and Van Hillegersberg, R. , 2009, “Minimally Invasive Surgery Compared to Open Procedures in Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Minerva Chir., 64(2), pp. 135–146. [PubMed]
Nisar, S. , and Hasan, O. , 2015, “Telesurgical Robotics,” Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, GI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 5482–5490.
Tinelli, R. , Litta, P. , Meir, Y. , Surico, D. , Leo, L. , Fusco, A. , Angioni, S. , and Cicinelli, E. , 2014, “Advantages of Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy in Extremely Obese Women (BMI > 35) With Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Multicenter Study,” Anticancer Res., 34(5), pp. 2497–2502. [PubMed]
Peters, J. H. , Gibbons, G. , Innes, J. , Nichols, K. , Roby, S. , and Ellison, E. , 1991, “Complications of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy,” Surgery, 110(4), pp. 769–777. [PubMed]
Yau, K. K. , Siu, W. T. , Tang, C. N. , Yang, G. P. C. , and Li, M. K. W. , 2007, “Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis,” J. Am. Coll. Surg., 205(1), pp. 60–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Berguer, R. , Smith, W. , and Chung, Y. , 2001, “Performing Laparoscopic Surgery Is Significantly More Stressful for the Surgeon Than Open Surgery,” Surg. Endoscopy, 15(10), pp. 1204–1207. [CrossRef]
Vitiello, V. , Lee, S. , Cundy, T. P. , and Yang, G. Z. , 2013, “Emerging Robotic Platforms for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng., 6, pp. 111–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Basdogan, C. , De, S. , Kim, J. , Muniyandi, M. , Kim, H. , and Srinivasan, M. , 2004, “Haptics in Minimally Invasive Surgical Simulation and Training,” IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl., 24(2), pp. 56–64. [CrossRef]
Dankelman, J. , 2004, “Surgical Robots and Other Training Tools in Minimally Invasive Surgery,” IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), Hague, The Netherlands, Oct. 10–13, Vol. 3, pp. 2459–2464.
Kuo, C. H. , and Dai, J. S. , 2009, “Robotics for Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Historical Review From the Perspective of Kinematics,” International Symposium on History of Machines and Mechanisms, Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 337–354.
Dakin, G. , and Gagner, M. , 2003, “Comparison of Laparoscopic Skills Performance Between Standard Instruments and Two Surgical Robotic Systems,” Surg. Endoscopy Other Interventional Tech., 17(4), pp. 574–579. [CrossRef]
Hassan, T. , Hameed, A. , Nisar, S. , Kamal, N. , and Hasan, O. , 2014, “Al-Zahrawi: A Telesurgical Robotic System for Minimal Invasive Surgery,” IEEE Syst. J., 10(99), pp. 1–11.
Madhani, A. J. , and Salisbury, J. K. , 1998, “ Force-Reflecting Surgical Instrument and Positioning Mechanism for Performing Minimally Invasive Surgery With Enhanced Dexterity and Sensitivity,” U.S. Patent No. 5,807,377.
van den Bedem, L. , 2010, “Realization of a Demonstrator Slave for Robotic Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Hannaford, B. , Rosen, J. , Friedman, D. W. , King, H. , Roan, P. , Cheng, L. , Glozman, D. , Ma, J. , Kosari, S. N. , and White, L. , 2013, “Raven-II: An Open Platform for Surgical Robotics Research,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 60(4), pp. 954–959. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sung, G. T. , and Gill, I. S. , 2001, “Robotic Laparoscopic Surgery: A Comparison of the da Vinci and Zeus Systems,” Urology, 58(6), pp. 893–898. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zong, G. , Pei, X. , Yu, J. , and Bi, S. , 2008, “Classification and Type Synthesis of 1-DOF Remote Center of Motion Mechanisms,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 43(12), pp. 1585–1595. [CrossRef]
Aksungur, S. , 2015, “Remote Center of Motion (RCM) Mechanisms for Surgical Operations,” Int. J. Appl. Math., Electron. Comput., 3(2), pp. 119–126. [CrossRef]
Hamlin, G. , and Sanderson, A. , 1994, “A Novel Concentric Multilink Spherical Joint With Parallel Robotics Applications,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), San Diego, CA, May 8–13, Vol. 2, pp. 1267–1272.
Taylor, R. , Funda, J. , Eldridge, B. , Gomory, S. , Gruben, K. , LaRose, D. , Talamini, M. , Kavoussi, L. , and Anderson, J. , 1995, “A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag., 14(3), pp. 279–288. [CrossRef]
Taylor, R. , Funda, J. , Grossman, D. , Karidis, J. , and LaRose, D. , 1995, “Remote Center-of-Motion Robot for Surgery,” U.S. Patent No. 5,397,323.
Rosen, J. , Brown, J. , Chang, L. , Barreca, M. , Sinanan, M. , and Hannaford, B. , 2002, “The Bluedragon—A System for Measuring the Kinematics and Dynamics of Minimally Invasive Surgical Tools In-Vivo,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Washington, DC, May 11–15, Vol. 2, pp. 1876–1881.
Lum, M. , Rosen, J. , Sinanan, M. , and Hannaford, B. , 2006, “Optimization of a Spherical Mechanism for a Minimally Invasive Surgical Robot: Theoretical and Experimental Approaches,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 53(7), pp. 1440–1445. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gijbels, A. , Wouters, N. , Stalmans, P. , Van Brussel, H. , Reynaerts, D. , and Poorten, E. V. , 2013, “Design and Realisation of a Novel Robotic Manipulator for Retinal Surgery,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Tokyo, Japan, Nov. 3–7, pp. 3598–3603.
Devengenzo, R. , Solomon, T. , and Cooper, T. , 2015, “Cable Tensioning in a Robotic Surgical System,” U.S. Patent No. 9,050,119.
Li, J. , Zhang, G. , Xing, Y. , Liu, H. , and Wang, S. , 2014, “A Class of 2-Degree-of-Freedom Planar Remote Center-of-Motion Mechanisms Based on Virtual Parallelograms,” ASME J. Mech. Rob., 6(3), p. 031014. [CrossRef]
Kong, K. , Li, J. , Zhang, H. , Li, J. , and Wang, S. , 2016, “Kinematic Design of a Generalized Double Parallelogram Based RCM Mechanism for Minimally Invasive Surgical Robot,” ASME J. Med. Devices, 10(4), p. 041006. [CrossRef]
Yoshikawa, T. , 1985, “Manipulability of Robotic Mechanisms,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 4(2), pp. 3–9. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A double-parallelogram RCM mechanism

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Required workspace for minimally invasive surgery

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Trivial forms of the proposed two DOF RCM mechanism

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The proposed two DOF RCM mechanism

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A simplified representation of the proposed RCM mechanism

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The alignment mechanism to maintain the remote center of motion constraint. A3 is a passive prismatic joint.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Mechanism workspace (light gray) and the required workspace for MIS (dark gray)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Variant forms of the proposed RCM mechanism: (a) offers larger translation DOF with reduced length of l4, (b) inverted alignment mechanism can generate even larger translation with further reduced length of l4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Average manipulability over the range of α (α=l2/l3,α > 0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Corresponding mechanism forms for cases of α (α=l2/l3): (a) α < 1, (b) α = 1, and (c) α > 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effective translation in the simplified representation of the proposed mechanism

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Rear-parallelogram configurations for cases α = 1, α < 1 and α >1 when θ=π/2. Distance OD represents rmin. Only case (a), (b), and (e) can generate the desired workspace (π/4≤θ≤3π/4) as they satisfy the constraint (22) and (23). As (c) and (d) do not satisfy Eqs. (22) and (23), they are excluded from re optimization.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effective translation over the range of α (α=l2/l3, α >0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Combined performance score over the range of α (α=l2/l3,α > 0)




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In