Endocavity Ultrasound Probe Manipulators.

We developed two similar structure manipulators for medical endocavity ultrasound probes with 3 and 4 degrees of freedom (DoF). These robots allow scanning with ultrasound for 3-D imaging and enable robot-assisted image-guided procedures. Both robots use remote center of motion kinematics, characteristic of medical robots. The 4-DoF robot provides unrestricted manipulation of the endocavity probe. With the 3-DoF robot the insertion motion of the probe must be adjusted manually, but the device is simpler and may also be used to manipulate external-body probes. The robots enabled a novel surgical approach of using intraoperative image-based navigation during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), performed with concurrent use of two robotic systems (Tandem, T-RALP). Thus far, a clinical trial for evaluation of safety and feasibility has been performed successfully on 46 patients. This paper describes the architecture and design of the robots, the two prototypes, control features related to safety, preclinical experiments, and the T-RALP procedure.

Geometric evaluation of systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy results rely on physician ability to target the gland according to the biopsy schema. However, to our knowledge it is unknown how accurately the freehand, transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy cores are placed in the prostate and how the geometric distribution of biopsy cores may affect the prostate cancer detection rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the geometric distribution of cores, we developed a biopsy simulation system with pelvic mock-ups and an optical tracking system. Mock-ups were biopsied in a freehand manner by 5 urologists and by our transrectal ultrasound robot, which can support and move the transrectal ultrasound probe. We compared 1) targeting errors, 2) the accuracy and precision of repeat biopsies, and 3) the estimated significant prostate cancer (0.5 cm(3) or greater) detection rate using a probability based model. RESULTS: Urologists biopsied cores in clustered patterns and under sampled a significant portion of the prostate. The robot closely followed the predefined biopsy schema. The mean targeting error of the urologists and the robot was 9.0 and 1.0 mm, respectively. Robotic assistance significantly decreased repeat biopsy errors with improved accuracy and precision. The mean significant prostate cancer detection rate of the urologists and the robot was 36% and 43%, respectively (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic biopsy with freehand transrectal ultrasound guidance does not closely follow the sextant schema and may result in suboptimal sampling and cancer detection. Repeat freehand biopsy of the same target is challenging. Robotic assistance with optimized biopsy schemas can potentially improve targeting, precision and accuracy. A clinical trial is needed to confirm the additional benefits of robotic assistance.