Cited by 4Teleoperation and Haptic SystemsSurgical Simulation and TrainingRobot Manipulation and Learning

Analyzing Surgeon–Robot Cooperative Performance in Robot-Assisted Intravascular Catheterization

Open access
Du, Wenjing, Yi, Guanlin, Omisore, Olatunji Mumini, Duan, Wenke, Oluwadra Akinyemi, Toluwanimi, Chen, Xingyu, Liu, Jiang, Lee, Boon-Giin +1 more·2024·IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems

Abstract

Robot-assisted catheterization offers a promising technique for cardiovascular interventions, addressing the limitations of manual interventional surgery, where precise tool manipulation is critical. In remote-control robotic systems, the lack of force feedback and imprecise navigation challenge cooperation between the surgeon and robot. This study proposes a manipulation-based evaluation framework to assess the cooperative performance between different operators and robot using kinesthetic, kinematic, and haptic data from multi-sensor technologies. The proposed evaluation framework achieves a recognition accuracy of 99.99% in assessing the cooperation between operator and robot. Additionally, the study investigates the impact of delay factors, considering no delay, constant delay, and variable delay, on cooperation characteristics. The findings suggest that variable delay contributes to improved cooperation performance between operator and robot in a primary-secondary isomorphic robotic system, compared to a constant delay factor. Furthermore, operators with experience in manual percutaneous coronary interventions exhibit significantly better cooperative manipulate on with the robot system than those without such experience, with respective synergy ratios of 89.66%, 90.28%, and 91.12% based on the three aspects of delay consideration. Moreover, the study explores interaction information, including distal force of tools-tissue and contact force of hand-control-ring, to unders…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/thms.2024.3452975

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Du, W., Yi, G., Omisore, O. M., Duan, W., Oluwadra Akinyemi, T., Chen, X., Liu, J., Lee, B.-G., & Wang, L.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Research Centre for Medical Robotics and Minimally Invasive Surgical Devices, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China
  • Southern University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • University of Nottingham Ningbo China (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems
Published
2024-12
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
698-710
ISSN
  • 2168-2291 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-2305
OpenAlex
W4403123013
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (U21A20480, U191320006)
  • National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2409000)
  • Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (JSGGKQTD20221101115654021)
  • Shenzhen Engineering Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment Key Technologies of Interventional Surgical Robots
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
Keywords
intravascular catheterization, communication delay, operator experience, percutaneous coronary intervention, haptic feedback, contact force, cardiovascular interventions

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.

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