Cited by 54Retinal and Macular SurgeryTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsSoft Robotics and Applications

Preliminary evaluation of a micro-force sensing handheld robot for vitreoretinal surgery

Open access
Gonenc, Berk, Balicki, Marcin A., Handa, James, Gehlbach, Peter, Riviere, Cameron N., Taylor, Russell H., Iordachita, Iulian·2012·2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

Abstract

Highly accurate positioning is fundamental to the performance of vitreoretinal microsurgery. Of vitreoretinal procedures, membrane peeling is among the most prone to complications since extremely delicate manipulation of retinal tissue is required. Associated tool-to-tissue interaction forces are usually below the threshold of human perception, and the surgical tools are moved very slowly, within the 0.1-0.5 mm/s range. During the procedure, unintentional tool motion and excessive forces can easily give rise to vision loss or irreversible damage to the retina. A successful surgery includes two key features: controlled tremor-free tool motion and control of applied force. In this study, we present the potential benefits of a micro-force sensing robot in vitreoretinal surgery. Our main contribution is implementing fiber Bragg grating based force sensing in an active tremor canceling handheld micromanipulator, known as Micron, to measure tool-to-tissue interaction forces in real time. Implemented auditory sensory substitution assists in reducing and limiting forces. In order to test the functionality and performance, the force sensing Micron was evaluated in peeling experiments with adhesive bandages and with the inner shell membrane from chicken eggs. Our findings show that the combination of active tremor canceling together with auditory sensory substitution is the most promising aid that keeps peeling forces below 7 mN with a significant reduction in 2-20 Hz oscillations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iros.2012.6385715

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 18 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Unintentional tool motion and excessive forces during membrane peeling can cause vision loss or irreversible retinal damage.

    “unintentional tool motion and excessive forces can easily give rise to vision loss or irreversible damage to the retina”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [2] source
    • cites [3] source
    • cites [4] source

      The Introduction (page unavailable) links hand tremor and other sources of imprecise tool motion, along with excessive retinal forces, to surgical complications that may cause vision loss. Methods §III.C (page unavailable) also links excessive or incorrectly applied forces to complications. Our copy does not specifically establish irreversible retinal damage or characterize these outcomes as occurring easily. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [5] source

      The Introduction’s discussion of microsurgical manipulation aids says that forces too small for a surgeon to feel can still create damaging pressure, and the Introduction describes involuntary tool motion as a source of positioning error. The cited passages do not establish that these factors during membrane peeling can easily cause vision loss or irreversible retinal damage. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    The bandage phantom and the inner shell membrane of raw chicken eggs have previously been reported and used as suitable surrogates for an epiretinal membrane.

    “Tests were done on two types of phantoms, which have previously been reported and used in our laboratory as suitable surrogates for an epiretinal membrane: bandage phantom[29], inner shell membrane of raw chicken eggs[15].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [29]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [15] source

      The citation [15] is attached to the raw chicken egg inner-shell membrane, not the bandage phantom [29]. The Methodology (p. 1) describes membrane peeling in rabbit eyes and vessel procedures in porcine retina; the Discussion (p. 2) compares the peeling task with epiretinal membrane peeling. Searches for chicken eggs, shell membrane, and phantoms found no passage reporting or using egg membrane as a surrogate. (LLM, conf=0.77)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    In frequency analysis of bandage phantom trials, force magnitude between 2 and 20 Hz was greatly reduced both with and without auditory force feedback.

    “Beyond 2 Hz until 20 Hz, the magnitude of forces is greatly reduced in both the absence and presence of auditory force feedback.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In free-hand peeling on chicken egg membrane, a 10 Hz peak was observed and disappeared upon activation of Micron.

    “In free-hand peeling tests (red line in Fig. 9), a peak was observed again at 10 Hz, which disappeared upon activation of Micron (blue line in Fig. 9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The membrane structure of chicken eggs does not vary significantly between eggs.
  • Findingown data

    With Micron alone on bandage phantom, forces in the danger zone still occurred due to lack of force feedback.

    “However, still, forces in danger zone were observed due lack of force feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 16
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 7
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Micron can sense its own motion, estimate the undesired hand tremor component in real time, and move its tip to counteract this component.

    “This micromanipulator robot can sense its own motion, estimate the undesired hand tremor component in real time, and moves the tool tip relative to the handle to counteract this component.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] source

      The Introduction identifies physiological tremor as a limitation of retinal microsurgery, but does not describe a device that cancels it. The Results describe force sensing at the tool tip, not sensing motion, estimating tremor in real time, or moving the tip relative to the handle. Searches for Micron and tremor-cancellation mechanisms found no passage addressing those capabilities. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Micron is a handheld actively stabilized 3-DOF micromanipulator designed to remove unintentional motion and enhance positional accuracy.

    “Micron is a handheld actively stabilized 3-DOF micromanipulator that is mainly designed to remove unintentional motion and enhance positional accuracy [16].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] source

      The Introduction discusses imprecise movements caused by physiological tremor, but does not describe Micron. Searches for Micron and active stabilization found no passage identifying it as a handheld 3-DOF micromanipulator or stating its design purpose. The paper instead describes a force-sensing tool. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In free-hand peeling on chicken egg membrane, high force variations with occasional non-safe forces were observed.

    “In free hand tests (Fig. 8.a), high force variations with occasional non-safe forces were observed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The membrane structure of chicken eggs does not vary significantly between eggs.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The combination of active tremor canceling and auditory sensory substitution on bandage phantom kept peeling forces within the safe operation zone and free of high-frequency oscillations, providing the best performance.

    “In the last case, combination of active tremor canceling together with auditory sensory substitution provided the best performance, where peeling forces were kept within the safe operation zone free of high frequency oscillations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The recorded reduction in force magnitude between 2 and 20 Hz was 60%-90% with auditory sensory substitution and 70%-90% without it.

    “In this range, the recorded reduction is 60%–90% with auditory sensory substitution, and 70%–90% without auditory sensory substitution as shown in Fig. 7.a and 7.b respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    With auditory sensory substitution alone on bandage phantom, almost all forces were kept below the safety threshold, but high-frequency oscillations remained in speed and force.

    “When auditory sensory substitution was used alone, almost all forces were kept below the safety threshold successfully, nevertheless with high frequency oscillations, which appeared both in speed and force plots.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The sensing instrument must be able to pass through a 25 Ga sclerotomy opening so that the sensor can be located close to the tool tip, ensuring force measurements pertain solely to the instrument tip without sclera contribution.

    “Furthermore, the sensing instrument should be able to pass through a 25 Ga sclerotomy opening so that the sensor can be located close to the tool tip. Only in this way, can force measurements pertain solely to the instrument’s tip, with no contribution from the sclera.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Micro-force sensing Micron responds to two critical requirements of vitreoretinal surgery: tremor-free positioning and force limitation.

    “Providing these two advantages on a single surgical tool, micro-force sensing Micron is able to respond to two of the most critical requirements of vitreoretinal surgery.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Continuous real-time auditory feedback representing applied force can be a clearer cue and significantly improve performance in complex surgery.

    “It was previously shown by Kitagawa et al. that continuous real-time auditory feedback representing applied force could be a clearer cue and thus significantly improve the performance in complex surgery [27].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Five trials were performed in random order for each scenario.

    “Five trials were performed in random order for each of these scenarios.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    FBG-based force sensing instruments can directly inform the surgeon of delicate peeling forces without adverse effect from tool-to-sclera interaction.

    “On the other hand, FBG based force sensing instruments could directly inform the surgeon of the extremely delicate peeling forces with no adverse effect from tool-to-sclera interaction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Micron alone provides tremor-free and accurate positioning control and greatly reduces force oscillations between 2-20 Hz.

    “Micron alone could provide tremor free and accurate positioning control as well as a great reduction in force oscillations between 2–20 Hz.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The presented micromanipulator can be a viable option not only for membrane peeling but also for other microsurgical procedures where positioning accuracy and force limitation problems coexist.

    “With its position and force sensing capabilities and intuitive feedback, we believe that the presented micromanipulator can be a viable option not only for membrane peeling but also for many other microsurgical procedures where positioning accuracy and force limitation problems coexist and need to be addressed together.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The chicken egg inner shell membrane phantom accounts for biological factors such as heterogeneous tissue structure and its effect on force, unlike bandage phantoms.

    “Unlike the bandages, this phantom accounted for biological factors such as heterogeneous tissue structure and its effect on force.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The auditory feedback system uses three safety zones: silent below 1 mN, slow beeping between 1 and 3.5 mN (safe), increasing tempo between 3.5 and 7 mN (caution), and constant high beeping above 7 mN (danger).

    “The audio remains silent until 1 mN or greater force is measured. Between 1 mN and 3.5 mN, a constant slow beeping is emitted, which is designated to be a “safe zone”. The second zone is between 3.5mN and 7 mN. A proportionally increasing tempo is generated to indicate this “caution zone”. Beyond 7 mN is a”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A successful vitreoretinal operation requires controlled tremor-free tool motion and limitation of force on the retina.

    “Hence for a successful operation, controlled tremor-free tool motion and limitation of force on the retina are two highly desired features.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    FBG sensors detect strain and, by measuring tool bending, allow calculation of force in the transverse plane with a sensitivity of 0.25 mN.

    “FBGs are robust optical sensors capable of detecting changes in strain. By measuring the bending of the tool they allow for calculation of the force in the transverse plane with a sensitivity of 0.25 mN.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    A training period of about 3 hours was allowed before data collection for each phantom type.

    “For each phantom type, an extensive training period (~3 hrs) was allowed before data collection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The calibration matrix K was obtained and used in a linear relationship to calculate force from FBG wavelength shift.

    “The calibration procedure was completed to get the following matrix: K=[0.009060.07346−0.06485−0.028100.05578−0.04533]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    To minimize axial force components, the Micron instrument must be held almost perpendicular to the membrane surface, which is not always practical.

    “In order to minimize axial components, the operations need to be performed while holding the Micron instrument almost perpendicular to the membrane surface, which is not always practical.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
20 of 20
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The membrane structure of chicken eggs does not vary significantly between eggs.

    “it was assumed that the membrane structure did not vary significantly between eggs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Micron does not provide any feedback or limitation on applied forces during surgery.

    “Micron has a major drawback: it does not provide any feedback or limitation on the applied forces during the surgery.”
2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.3109/10929089909148155 · DOI · Paper page
  2. schenker, 1995, Development of a telemanipulator for dexterity enhanced microsurgery, Proc 2nd Int Symp Med Rob Comput Asst Surg, 81

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gonenc, B., Balicki, M. A., Handa, J., Gehlbach, P., Riviere, C. N., Taylor, R. H., & Iordachita, I.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2012-10
Volume
2012
Pages
4125-4130
ISSN
2153-0858 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W81319023
Cited by
54
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3
FWCI
15.99
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB000526, R01EB007969)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal and Macular Surgery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Soft Robotics and Applications
Keywords
vitrectomy, membrane peeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review