Int J CARS

DOI 10.1007/s11548-016-1352-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An all-joint-control master device for single-port laparoscopic

surgery robots
Seongbo Shim1 · Taehun Kang3 · Daekeun Ji1 ·
Hyunseok Choi1 · Sanghyun Joung2 · Jaesung Hong1

Received: 18 July 2015 / Accepted: 14 January 2016

© CARS 2016

Abstract and that both tips have similar trajectories with minimal
Purpose Robots for single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) error.
typically have all of their joints located inside abdomen dur-
ing surgery, whereas with the da Vinci system, only the tip
Keywords Single-port laparoscopic surgery robot · Master
part of the robot arm is inserted and manipulated. A typical
master device that controls only the tip with six degrees of device · All-joint control · Mapping factor
freedom (DOFs) is not suitable for use with SPLS robots
because of safety concerns. Introduction
Methods We designed an ergonomic six-DOF master device
that can control all of the joints of an SPLS robot. We matched Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) makes use of the
each joint of the master, the slave, and the human arm to navel as an entry point for surgical tools. Because of the
decouple all-joint motions of the slave robot. Counterbalance creation of a single incision around the navel, SPLS results
masses were used to reduce operator fatigue. Mapping fac- in less postoperative scarring, less postoperative pain, and
tors were determined based on kinematic analysis and were more rapid recovery than conventional open surgery or multi-
used to achieve all-joint control with minimal error at the tip port laparoscopic surgery [1]. However, because the surgical
of the slave robot. instruments are intersected through the navel, the operation
Results The proposed master device has two noteworthy is counterintuitive and difficult [2], and a significant amount
features: efficient joint matching to the human arm to decou- of training is required. In addition, high levels of concentra-
ple each joint motion of the slave robot and accurate mapping tion are required to manipulate the instruments appropriately
factors, which can minimize the trajectory error of the tips [3–5].
between the master and the slave. To overcome these technical difficulties, master–slave
Conclusions We confirmed that the operator can manip- robot systems have been developed. Surgeons can control
ulate the slave robot intuitively with the master device the slave surgical robot by manipulating a master device
at a remote location [6,7]. When the surgeon manipulates
the master device while watching the endoscopic image, the
B Jaesung Hong
[email protected] master device records the position and orientation of the sur-
geon’s hands. After calculating the corresponding motion,
1 Department of Robotics Engineering, DGIST, the slave robot moves to perform the surgery. A typical
333, Techno jungang-daero, Hyeonpung-myeon,
Dalseong-gun, Daegu, Korea
example of a master–slave system is the da Vinci surgical
2
system [8]. Using such robotic systems, surgeons can focus
Medical Device and Robot Institute of Park,
Kyungpook National University, 80 Daehakro, Bukgu,
on the surgery using the master device, without consider-
Daegu 702-701, Korea ing the structure of the slave robot. If necessary, this type
3 Division of IoT & Robotics Convergence Research, DGIST,
of master device can switch the control mode between left
333, Techno jungang-daero, Hyeonpung-myeon, and right, adjusted to the counterintuitive configuration of the
Dalseong-gun, Daegu, Korea slave robot. There have been a number of reports of studies

123
 Int J CARS

on slave robots for SPLS but relatively few reports of stud- space, in contrast to tip control in an integrated single Carte-
ies on master devices. In this study, we focused on a master sian space. An example of the all-joint control method is the
device for SPLS slave robots. master–slave Mutual Telexistence system [12], in which the
When designing a master device for an SPLS robot, it is operator can easily manipulate a specific joint of the slave
necessary to note the structural differences between multi- robot via joint-linking motions of the master and the slave.
port surgical robots, such as the da Vinci system in which However, this is for a slave robot which has the same structure
most of the joints are outside the body during surgery, and as a human arm for non-medical purpose.
SPLS robots in which most of the joints are located inside In the field of surgical robots, all-joint control has been
the abdominal cavity. In SPLS robots, following insertion applied to several master devices. Hyper Finger [13] is a com-
through a single entry point, the robot spreads its arms and pact and lightweight robotic system for minimally invasive
takes an appropriate pose for the surgery using multiple joints surgery that has nine degrees of freedom (DOFs). However,
[9–11]. A robot that spreads in this manner after insertion is because not every joint of the master device is matched to
referred to as a Y-type robot, as the robot forms a “Y” shape one of the human arm, the joints of the slave robot cannot be
(see Fig. 1b). manipulated separately. A flexible endoscopic gastrointesti-
On the other hand, master devices for robot control can nal robot manipulator has also been proposed [14]. Although
be separated into two types. Devices of the first type are tip- this provides total joint matching, the wearable exoskeleton
control master devices that control only the tip of the slave leads to fatigue owing to its weight. MASTER, proposed by
robot by calculating the change in the rotation and transla- Phee et al. [15], allows the end effector to mimic the motion
tion of the tip in a Cartesian space. Most master devices use of the master device, but the master device has only three
such a tip-control method, including the da Vinci system [9], rotational joints. The prismatic joints of the slave robot must
the PHANToM OMNI system [10], and the DLR MiroSurge be manipulated separately using a footswitch. To the best of
robot [11]. Because a tip-control master device allows the our knowledge, there is no master device that can control all
tip of the slave robot to follow the tip of the master device, of the joints of a six-DOF surgical robot separately.
the user can manipulate the slave robot intuitively. This type In this paper, we describe the development of a new six-
of master device is commonly used for both general-purpose DOF master device for SPLS robots that supports all-joint
applications and surgical applications. control. The master was primarily designed for the PLAS
Devices of the second type are all-joint-control master robot [16], which is a Y-type slave device developed by the
devices that manipulate not only the tip but also the interme- author group. Although the master was initially designed
diate joints of the slave robot, using a joint-to-joint mapping for PLAS, the design concept of the master device may be
technique. Using tip control, the motion of each joint can- applied to other SPLS robots with appropriate modifications.
not be monitored precisely. However, in a Y-type slave robot Most SPLS robot arms should be articulated inside the body
for SPLS, most of the joints of the robot are located in the to make the triangulation layout with an endoscope. The pro-
body; therefore, all of the joints, including the tip, should posed master device efficiently matches the human wrist and
be operated within safe limits or intended workspace. If we elbow to the SPLS robot joints inside the body.
use tip control, some unmonitored intermediate joint motion We designed the master device to decouple all-joint
may result in damage to tissue; therefore, all-joint control motions of the slave robot with considering operator
is preferable. All-joint control is performed for each joint ergonomics. Joint matching between the slave, the master,
and the human arm should be analyzed, considering the range
of motion of the human arm [17,18]. We confirmed that each
joint motion of the slave robot is well decoupled using the
proposed master device.
Furthermore, we identified optimal mapping factors bet-
ween the master and slave robots based on a velocity
matching algorithm. The master and slave have different
joint structures; therefore, a simple 1:1 joint mapping leads
to velocity differences. An inverse Jacobian method was not
used because of coupling motions of the joints; instead, we
used kinematics analysis to identify appropriate mapping
factors that minimize the velocity error. We performed sim-
ulations to assess the correctness of the mapping factors.
The main contribution of this study is the development of
Fig. 1 Laparoscopic surgery robots. a Multi-port surgery robot and b a new six-DOF master device for all-joint control of SPLS
single-port surgery robot robots with optimized mapping factors.

123
Int J CARS

Design of all-joint matching master device

With a tip-control master device, only the motion at the end

effector of the slave robot is important. However, with an all-
joint-control master device, not only the end effector but also
all of the other joints of the slave robot should be matched to
the corresponding joints of the master device.
To design the master device, we investigated the structures
of the joints of the slave robot and those of the human arm. If
we were to consider only the structure of the slave robot and
were to build a master device that mimics this motion, the
structure of the master would differ from that of the human
arm, which would limit the natural motion of the arm.
The range of joint angle of the master device was deter-
mined based on the analysis of human arm joints by Wang
et al. [17]. The wrist rotates from −70◦ to +60◦ in flex-
ion/extension and from 0◦ to 50◦ in abduction/adduction.
The angle of flexion of the elbow joint is 142◦ , and those of
supination/pronation are up to 90◦ and 80◦ , respectively. The
master device was designed considering these ergonomic fac-
tors, as well as counterbalance masses to minimize operator
Fig. 2 The PLAS slave robot for the proposed master. a CAD model
fatigue [19].
and b prototype [16]

Structure of the slave robot

The partner slave robot for the proposed master is the PLAS
robot [16], although the proposed master is not limited to use
with this slave robot. It is difficult to produce sufficient torque
to operate on relatively large organs, such as the intestines
and liver, using SPLS robots. With the PLAS robot, a plate–
spring mechanism is used to produce a large force. The PLAS
robot has six DOFs for each of the arms, which consist of
two prismatic joints (joints 1 and 5) and four rotational joints
(joints 2, 3, 4, and 6), as shown in Fig. 2. Joint 1 provides a
large workspace by separating the starting point for each arm;
joints 2 and 3 are used to create a yaw angle; and joints 4 and
6 correspond to pitch and roll, respectively. Joint 5 creates
forward and backward motion, once the orientation has been
determined. We considered all DOFs of the individual arms,
resulting in a total of 12 DOFs for the design. Because all Fig. 3 Joint matching between the slave robot and the human arm
of the joints of the PLAS robot are located inside abdomen,
all-joint-control of the master device should be used.
of the master device is matched to the linear motion of human
Design of all-joint-control master device forearm composed by the rotations of the shoulder and elbow.
Another prismatic joint is matched to linear motions of the
To manipulate the PLAS robot using all-joint control, the fingers, as shown in Fig. 3.
master device requires two yaw axes, one pitch axis, one roll We designed a master device to implement matching
axis, and two prismatic joints. To control each joint of the between the human arm and the PLAS robot described above
slave robot separately, all joints of the master device must (see Fig. 4). Joint 2 of the master device (which is matched
be decoupled. Matching between the master device and the to the elbow) is related to joint 2 of the slave robot. The
human arm to decouple the six DOFs of the slave robot is joint is also an armrest that supports the weight of the oper-
achieved by assigning one yaw axis to the elbow and pitch, ator’s arm. Joints 3, 4, and 5 of the master device (which are
roll, and the other yaw axis to the wrist. One prismatic joint rotated by the wrist) correspond to joints 3, 4, and 6 of the

123
 Int J CARS

Fig. 6 Schematic diagram of the positioning of joint 4

Fig. 4 CAD model of the proposed master device

mass of the links after joint 4 is approximately 240 g, and the
joint is tilted by approximately 60◦ . Considering that the wrist
is rotated from 0◦ to 50◦ on average in abduction/adduction,
the operator should withstand the weight associated with it,
which may result in fatigue during long surgical operations.
To limit operator fatigue, joint 4 should be tilted to approxi-
mately 25◦ in the steady state.
To obtain a joint angle of 25◦ for joint 4 in the steady
state, the master device contains two counterbalance masses
on either side, as shown in Fig. 6. The values of the parameters
shown in Fig. 6 are as follows: r = 9 cm, M = 240.5 g, L = 18.8
cm, and l = 3.4 cm. Using the following relations between
the positioning stage, we may determine the mass m:

2m (r sinθ + lcosθ ) = M (Lcosθ − r sinθ ) , (1)

Fig. 5 A prototype of the proposed master device M (Lcosθ − r sinθ )
2m = . (2)
(r sinθ + lcosθ )
slave robot. By matching these rotational joints to the wrist We find that 2 m = 460 g. By placing 230 g counterbalancing
joint appropriately, the total amount of motion required for masses on both sides of the joint, joint 4 can be tilted by 25◦ ,
manipulation is reduced, thus reducing operator fatigue. Joint as shown in Fig. 7.
1 of the master device matched to joint 1 of the slave robot
translates in response to linear motion of the forearm through Sensors and materials
the rotations of the shoulder and elbow. Joint 6 of the mas-
ter device is controlled by translation of the fingers and is Sensors are required to measure the motion of the master
matched to joint 5 of the slave robot. This matching permits device, and the number of sensors should be equal to the
manipulation of overall and fine translation movement sep- number of joints. The master device consists of two pris-
arately using the forearm and the fingers. Figure 5 shows a matic joints and four rotational joints. The motion of joint
photograph of the prototype master device. 1 is detected using two XSS-5GL13 on/off push switches
(Zhejiang Xurui Electronic Co., Wenzhou, China) because
Balance of the positioning stage the stroke of joint 1 of the slave robot is too long to be con-
trolled using one-to-one motion matching. When an external
Because of the mass of the links after joint 4, it is difficult to force does not act on joint 1, the joint maintains the center
rotate joint 4 in response to pitch rotation of the wrist. The of displacement due to the elastic force of springs mounted

123
Int J CARS

vS = JS ΘS , (4)

where vM , JM , and ΘM  represent Cartesian velocity, Jaco-

bian, and joint velocity of the master device, and vS , JS ,

and ΘS represent the corresponding properties of the slave
robot. To have the same Cartesian velocity between master
and slave, the joint velocity of the slave robot is determined
as follows:

ΘS = JS−1 vS , (5)

ΘS = JS−1 vM = JS−1 JM ΘM

. (6)

A Jacobian-based approach is widely used to ensure that the

velocity at the tip of the slave robot is equal to that at the tip of
the master device. However, it is not straightforward to apply
Fig. 7 The angle of joint 4 with the counterbalance masses this method to all-joint-control master devices, such as that
described here. Some joints have coupled motion; therefore,
we may confine the tip motion but not confine the motion of
on each side. When joint 1 is moved forward or backward, a each joint separately. There is thus a risk that the motion of
switch is pushed and generates a signal. Rotational motions some joints may damage organs or tissue during surgery.
of joints 2 to 5 are detected using Ultra Miniature Encoder 7S We identified mapping factors that permit one-to-one joint
series sensors (Nemicon Corp., Tokyo, Japan). These devices control with minimal error at the tip. To determine these map-
have a high angular resolution of approximately 0.225◦ , a ping factors for each joint, the kinematics of the master device
diameter of 7.2 mm, and a height of 13.5 mm. The mass of were analyzed, as described in the following subsection.
the encoder is approximately 5 g, enabling easy manipula-
tion of the master device. Joint 6 uses a linear potentiometer
Kinematics of the master device
(PTL45-15R0-103B2, Bourns Inc., Altadena, CA) for linear
motion instead of an encoder. The potentiometer has a resis-
Figure 8 shows a kinematic representation of the master
tance of 10 k, and it is approximately 60 mm long, 9 mm
device. The axes are labeled according to the distal Denavit–
wide, and 7 mm high.
Hartenberg (D–H) convention [21], and the corresponding
All of the components of the master device were fab-
D–H parameters are listed in Table 1. Joints 1 and 6 are pris-
ricated with a rapid prototyping machine (Eden 250TM ,
matic joints, and joints 2, 3, 4, and 5 are rotational joints.
Stratasys Ltd., Rehovot, Israel). The machine has a resolution
In Fig. 8, d1 represents translation of the forearm; d6 repre-
of 16 μm, and the material used was FullCure 835 (Stratasys
sents translation of the fingers; and θ2 , θ3 , θ4 , and θ5 are the
Ltd., Rehovot, Israel), which has a tensile strength of 57 MPa
angles of the elbow, yaw, pitch, and roll of the wrist, respec-
and a minimum elastic modulus of 2220 MPa. This material
tively. The value of d1 is increased in proportion to the length
is sufficiently strong to manipulate the master device using
of time that the switch is pushed. The dimensions shown in
a human arm. In addition, the rotational and prismatic joints
were equipped with bearings and linear guides to minimize
friction.

Master–slave mapping

The structure of the master device differs from that of the

slave, the PLAS robot, because of the ergonomics of the
human arm. Because of these differences, simple one-to-one
mapping would lead to velocity and positional errors at the
tip. The inverse Jacobian [20] is given by the following rela-
tions:
Fig. 8 Kinematic model of the master device. The axes are labeled

vM = JM ΘM , (3) according to the distal Denavit–Hartenberg convention

123
 Int J CARS

Table 1 D–H parameters of the master device with respect to joint variables [20]. The Jacobian of the sim-
Joint i αi−1 ai−1 di θi plified slave robot Js is given by
⎡ ⎤
1 0 0 d1 = variable 0 (−S23 (a3 + d5 C4 ) − a2 S2 ) (−S23 (a3 + d5 C4 )) (−d5 S4 C23 )
2 π
0 d2 θ2 = variable + π ⎣ (C23 (a3 + d5 C4 ) + a2 C2 ) (C23 (a3 + d5 C4 )) (−d5 S4 S23 ) ⎦ ,
2 2
3 0 a2 0 θ3 = variable 0 0 (d5 C4 )
π π
4 2 0 0 θ4 = variable + 2
5 π
0 0 θ5 = variable where Sxy represents sin(x + y). And the Jacobian of the
2
6 0 a5 d6 = variable + d6 0 simplified master device JM is defined by

⎡ 
⎤
−S23 (d6 C4 ) − a 2 S2) (−S23 (d6 C4 )) (−d6 S4 C23 )
⎣ C23 (d6 C4 ) + a C2 (C23 (d6 C4 )) (−d6 S4 S23 ) ⎦
2
Fig. 8 are as follows: d2 = 88 mm, a2 = 138 mm, a5 = 0 0 (d6 C4 )
45 mm, and d6 = 110 mm.
The constants in these expressions are as follows: a2 =
Mapping factors for decoupling all joints 50, a3 = 15, d5 = 30, a2 = 138, and d6 = 60.
To achieve all-joint control, we assumed Θ Si  = K ∗
i

Θ Mi ; that is, each joint of the slave robot was assumed to be
The mapping factors for the four revolute joints were deter-
mined as follows. Because joint 1 is moved using an on/off actuated in response to motion of the corresponding joint of
switching mode and joint 6 is moved forward and back- the master device. Using Eqs. (3) and (4), a diagonal matrix
ward after the orientation is determined, the prismatic joints K was constructed as follows:
were considered independently from the rotational joints.
The mapping factors for the rotational joints were consid- vS = vM , (7)
ered to produce similar trajectories of the master and the JS ΘS 
= JM ΘM , (8)
slave. Because the structure of the master differs from that  
JS K ∗ ΘM = JM ΘM , (9)
of the slave, there will inevitably be differences in the veloc- ⎡ ⎤
ities and trajectories of the tips if we use all-joint control. K2 0 0
We attempted to minimize these differences and to match JS ⎣ 0 K 3 0 ⎦ = JM . (10)
the velocity and trajectory as closely as possible between the 0 0 K4
master and slave, while maintaining joint-to-joint control.
To obtain the mapping factors for the rotational joints, Using the third-row vector of Eq. (10), the term K 4 may be
kinematic models of the master and slave were modified obtained as follows:
from six DOFs to four DOFs by excluding the two prismatic
joints, as shown in Fig. 9. By multiplying link-transformation d6
(d5 C4 ) K 4 = (d6 C4 ) , K4 = . (11)
matrices of the master and the slave, each total transforma- d5
tion matrix that relates the base frame to the end frame is
calculated [21]. Jacobian matrices are derived by perform- K 3 may then be calculated from the second-row vector of
ing partial differentiation of the total transformation matrices Eq. (10), i.e.,

Fig. 9 Kinematic model of the

rotational joints. a PLAS slave
robot and b the master device

123
Int J CARS

Table 2 Mapping factors Joint i Mapping factor the error at the tip, the trajectories of the master and slave
between master and slave tips were compared using simulations.
1 On/Off
(C23 (d6 C4 )+a2 C2 )
2 (C23 (a3 +d5 C4 )+a2 C2 )
Decoupling each joint motion of the slave robot
(d6 C4 )
3 (a3 +d5 C4 )
(d6 ) Using the master device, the slave robot was manipulated as
4 (d5 ) shown in Fig. 10. When the elbow was folded, joint 2 of the
5 1 robot rotated. When the wrist was rotated in the order of yaw,
6 1 pitch, and roll, joints 3, 4, and 6 were rotated in sequence.
When the forearm and fingers were translated, joints 1 and
5 moved forward and backward. These results confirm that
(C23 (a3 + d5 C4 )) K 3 = (C23 (d6 C4 )) , each joint of the slave robot can be controlled separately
(d6 C4 ) using the master device. We also obtained some feedback
K3 = . (12)
(a3 + d5 C4 ) from users. First, because of the armrest (joint 2), they were
able to manipulate the master device without a significant
K 2 can be calculated using the second-row vector of Eq. (10), burden. Second, because the master device matched each
i.e., joint of the human arm and the slave robot, each joint motion
of the slave robot could be decoupled.
 
(C23 (a3 + d5 C4 ) + a2 C2 ) K 2 = C23 (d6 C4 ) + a2 C2 ,
 
C23 (d6 C4 ) + a2 C2 Evaluation of the mapping factors
K2 = . (13)
(C23 (a3 + d5 C4 ) + a2 C2 )
We investigated whether the tips of the master and the slave
The first-, second-, and third-row vectors of Eq. (10) are had similar trajectories using the rotational joints. Using the
related to vx , v y , and vz , respectively. The mapping factors mapping factors listed in Table 2, we plotted the trajectories
are listed in Table 2. of the master and the slave using MATLAB (MathWorks
Although the master and slave have similar velocities Inc., Natick, MA). To evaluate only the performance of each
because of the use of these mapping factors, errors in the mapping factor without physical errors, we used simulation
velocities and resulting trajectories at the tips cannot be instead of the physical prototype. When the master device
avoided using all-joint control. When the mapping factors in rotated through 30◦ at joint 2, the slave robot rotated by 62.5◦
Eq. (10) were used, the velocity components v y and vz of the at the same joint using the mapping factors listed in Table 2.
master and slave were equal. However, there was inevitable As a result, both tips moved 103.6 mm, as shown in Fig.
error in vx , i.e., 11. When joint 3 of the master device rotated through 30◦ ,
joint 3 of the slave rotated by 40◦ using the corresponding
JS K − JM = (S2 3 (d6 C4 ) + a2 S2 ) mapping factor. As a result, we found that the mapping factor
  allowed for motion of 31.4 mm of both tips, as shown in
C23 (d6 C4 ) + a2 C2
− Fig. 12. With joint 4, we were able to obtain identical motion
(C23 (a3 + d5 C4 ) + a2 C2 ) of both tips with zero error using the mapping factors, as
×(S23 (a3 + d5 C4 ) + a2 S2 ). (14) shown in Fig. 13. Note that this complete agreement between
master and slave occurred only when the remaining joints
Since the operation times of the master and the slave are were stationary. When the joints moved in combination, some
identical, this error in velocity results in the final trajectory error occurred at the tip (as described later).
error between the master and the slave as shown in Fig. 15,
which is considered acceptable for the task of handling tissue. Trajectory error with the master device

We carried out simulations using the VTK graphic library

Experiment and results (Kitware Inc., Clifton Park, NY) to characterize the relation-
ship between the trajectories of the master and slave robot
To evaluate the performance of the system, we connected tips. We used the master device, a virtual slave system, and a
the master device and the slave robot and performed basic 2560 Arduino Mega controller (Arduino Corp., Ivrea, Italy)
translation, rotation, and grasping tasks. We also verified the to connect them, as shown in Fig. 14. A virtual slave robot
mapping factors via simulations. We confirmed that each was simulated based on the mechanical drawings and 3D
slave joint was controlled without coupling to the corre- model of the slave robot, PLAS, to evaluate the performance
sponding master joint using the mapping factors. To assess of the master device and the accuracy of mapping factors,

123
 Int J CARS

Fig. 10 Motion of the

rotational joints of the master
and slave

Fig. 11 Comparison of the trajectories of joint 2 between the master and slave

while avoiding the mechanical errors of the slave robot. angles calculated by the encoder values were then multiplied
The Arduino electronics prototyping platform uploads the by the mapping factors for each joint to determine the pose
compiled firmware via a universal serial bus (USB) connec- of the virtual slave robot.
tion. The encoder values of the master device were obtained To compare the trajectories of the tips of the master
using a serial peripheral interface (SPI) connection. The joint and the virtual slave, four rotational joints of the real mas-

123
Int J CARS

Fig. 12 Comparison of the trajectories of joint 3 between the master and slave

Fig. 13 Comparison of the trajectories of joint 4 between the master and slave

ter device were arbitrarily manipulated, and the trajectories

were obtained. We confirmed that when the master device
was manipulated five times, the trajectory error between the
master and slave averaged 4 %. Figure 15 shows a set of sim-
ulation results with a trajectory error of approximately 8 mm
in 202 mm. However, the shapes and overall lengths of the
trajectories of the master and slave were similar. We discuss
the discrepancies and a solution for them in the following
section.

Discussion

Fig. 14 Simulation system used to characterize the trajectory of the To implement master–slave operation in SPLS, we matched
master device and slave robot the human arm, the master, and the slave, while decoupling

123
 Int J CARS

Fig. 15 Comparison of trajectories between the master and the virtual slave with four rotational joints

all of the joints. Decoupling is required to avoid possible col- Also, to determine each link length of the master device,
lisions between the intermediate joints of the robot and tissue, the average length of human arms and size of hands were
as well as the endoscope. To obtain the desired tip motion of considered. In order to make the master device fit various
the slave, we determined appropriate mapping factors based operators’ arms and hands, the component size should be
on a kinematic analysis. Although the first simulation using made adjustable to each operator.
MATLAB yielded identical trajectories of the joints when
manipulated individually, when the joints move in combi-
nation, differences in the structures of the master and slave Conclusions
resulted in differences in the motions of the tips of the master
and slave. Using Eqs. (11)–(14), we found that the velocity We designed a master device to support SPLS robots. In con-
components v y and vz at the tips of the master and slave trast to the da Vinci system, we chose all-joint control for
were equal but that the vx velocity components differed. We the safe motion of the single-port surgery slave robot. We
detected a 4 % trajectory error in the experiment, but this matched each joint of the master, the slave, and the human
error can be overcome by a surgeon using visual feedback. arm, while decoupling all-joint motions of the slave robot.
If the robot must follow the exact trajectory planned prior to Mapping factors were determined based on kinematic analy-
surgery, as in needle insertion into a small tumor, any small sis and were used to achieve all-joint control with minimal
discrepancy between trajectories may cause serious prob- error at the tip of the slave robot.
lems. However, with SPLS, surgeons typically operate the
master manually with visual feedback from the laparoscopic Acknowledgments This work was supported by the R&D Program
monitor. If the distance to the target can be estimated from the of the DGIST Convergence Science Center (12-BD-0402).
laparoscopic image, the surgeon may alter the trajectory of
Compliance with ethical standards
the master to reach the target. We can reduce this 4 % error to
almost 0 % at the tip if we use the conventional inverse Jaco- Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
bian approach. However, we cannot control other joints inside interest.
the body except the tip part. Therefore, 4 % was inevitable
error that we had to accept to control every joint inside the
body for safety, as well as the tip part for the master–slave References
systems that have different structures from each other.
Berkelman et al. [22] also reported that using a master– 1. Chamberlain RS, Sakpal SV (2009) A comprehensive review of
single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice
slave system for a gripper reduced the trajectory error transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) techniques for chole-
compared with manual operation. They showed that manual cystectomy. J Gastrintest Surg 13:1733–1740
operation had more than 50 % trajectory error, and even the 2. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop W, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ,
reduced error was more than 10 %. Considering these results, Haglind E, Påhlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy
AM (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon
4 % error may be acceptable, or at least is much smaller than cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol
the error in manual operation. 6:477–484

123
Int J CARS

3. Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Stein RJ (2009) Robotic 14. Thant Z, Low S, Tang S, Phee L, Ho K, Chung S (2006) Ergonomic
single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int master controller for flexible endoscopic gastrointestinal robot
103:366–369 manipulator. In: International conference on biomedical and phar-
4. Autorino R, Cadeddu JA, Desai MM, Gettman M, Gill IS, Kavoussi maceutical engineering ICBPE, 2006, pp 575–579
LR, Lima E, Montorsi F, Richstone L, Stolzenburg JU, Kaouk 15. Phee SJ, Low SC, Huynh V, Kencana AP, Sun Z, Yang K (2009)
JH (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice trans- Master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER) for
luminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). In: IEEE
literature. Eur Urol 59:26–45 annual international conference on engineering in medicine and
5. Cindolo L, Gidaro S, Tamburro FR, Schips L (2010) Laparo- biology society, 2009, pp 1192–1195
endoscopic single-site left transperitoneal adrenalectomy. Eur Urol 16. Cheon B, Gezgin E, Ji DK, Tomikaw M, Hashizume M, Kim HJ,
57:911–914 Hong JS (2014) A single port laparoscopic surgery robot with high
6. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) force transmission and a large workspace. Surg Endosc 28:2719–
Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14 2729
7. Howe RD, Matsuoka Y (1999) Robotics for surgery. Annu Rev 17. Wang X (1999) A behavior-based inverse kinematics algorithm
Biomed Eng 1:211–240 to predict arm prehension postures for computer-aided ergonomic
8. Haber GP, White MA, Autorino R, Escobar PF, Kroh MD, Cha- evaluation. J Biomech 32:453–460
likonda S, Khanna R, Forest S, Yang B, Altunrende F, Stein RJ, 18. Perry JC, Rosen J, Burns S (2007) Upper-limb powered exoskele-
Kaouk JH (2010) Novel robotic da Vinci instruments for laparoen- ton design. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 12:408–417
doscopic single-site surgery. Urology 76:1279–1282 19. Hayward V, Gregorio P, Astley O, Greenish S, Doyon M, Lessard
9. Autorino R, Kaouk JH, Stolzenburg JU, Gill IS, Mottrie A, Tewari L, McDougall J, Sinclair I, Boelen S, Chen X, Demers JG, Poulin
A, Cadeddu JA (2013) Current status and future directions of J, Benguigui I, Almey N, Makuc B, Zhang X (1998) Freedom-7: a
robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63:266– high fidelity seven axis haptic device with application to surgical
280 training. In: Casals A, de Almeida AT (eds) Experimental robotics
10. Silva AJ, Ramirez OAD, Vega VP, Oliver JPO (2009) Phantom V. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 443–456
omni haptic device: kinematic and manipulability. In: electronics, 20. Craig JJ (2005) Introduction to robotics: mechanics and control,
robotics and automotive mechanics conference CERMA’09:193– Chapter 5. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, vol 3, pp
198 135–164
11. Hagn U, Konietschke R, Tobergte A, Nickl M, Jörg S, Kübler 21. Craig JJ (2005) Introduction to robotics: mechanics and control,
B, Passig G, Gröger M, Fröhlich F, Seibold U, Le-Tien L, Albu- Chapter 3. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, vol 3, pp
Schäffer A, Nothhelfer A, Hacker F, Grebenstein M, Hirzinger G 62–100
(2010) DLR MiroSurge: a versatile system for research in endo- 22. Berkelman P, Ma J (2009) A compact modular teleoperated robot
scopic telesurgery. Int J Comp Assist Radiol Surg 5:183–193 system for laparoscopic surgery. Int J Robot Res 28:1198–1215
12. Tadakuma R, Asahara Y, Kajimoto H, Kawakami N, Tachi S (2005)
Development of anthropomorphic multi-DOF master–slave arm for
mutual telexistence. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 11:626–636
13. Ikuta K, Hasegawa T, Daifu S (2003) Hyper redundant miniature
manipulator “Hyper Finger” for remote minimally invasive surgery
in deep area. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on robotics and
automation, ICRA’03. pp 1098–1102

123