Modeling and control of a parallel robot for needle surgery

S. DAngella, A. Khan, F. Cepolina, M. Zoppi

AbstractThe paper discusses the development of the
dynamic model and the design of the control system of a new
parallel robot called PmarNeedle. The PmarNeedle was
purposely designed for needle surgery, one of the current
frontiers of minimally invasive surgery, as slave robot driving
the surgical tool within a surgical theater whose dimensions are
small compared to in use robotic surgery theaters for
laparoscopy. The paper presents the PmarNeedle kinematic
and dynamic model used to define the control laws and to setup
the control parameters. Simple PD control laws with and
without non-linearities compensation filters have been
implemented. The work is developed in ProEngineer, Simulink
and SimMechanics. Results obtained in the simulation
environment are discussed.
I. INTRODUCTION
ICRO-laparoscopy or needlescopy introduces a new
surgical approach whose application can be extended
to many procedures currently carried out with laparoscopy,
generally with same setup [1]. Various surgical techniques
are used and in development. Recently 2 ports setups are
also gaining more acceptance while 4 and 3 ports
arrangements (one 2 mm micro-fiberoptic microlaparoscope
and two 2 mm needlescopic instruments) have been in use
for example for submandibular gland removal [2] and
gynecological procedures [3] . It has been reported the use
of 10 mm modified operating telescope together with a
3mm needlescope through the second port [4].
A. Needlescopy
Needlescopy requires less analgesia, less
pneumoperitoneum pressure, abdomen cavity can be viewed
before insufflation reducing surgical complications and
wounds are smaller and less visible. On the other hand,
delicate instruments require more experience and gentle
tissue handling techniques due to their flexibility which can
cause damage to tissues and may not provide sufficient
manipulation in some cases [5], [6], [3].
Due to the small diameter, needlescopic tools are fragile
and bend easily with lateral forces necessitating avoidance
of forceful maneuvers [7]. Their manipulation is not easy
and to prevent damaging tissues, great care and attention is
needed when performing surgery. Allowed forces are lower
than the reference values for laparoscopy [8] and they are
dependent on the strength of the instrument
The PmarNeedle Robotic System is primarily for
needlescopic diagnosis as well as surgical procedures. Since
it is not very uncommon during the course of needlescopic
surgery to exchange a needlescopic port with a standard 5
mm or larger laparoscopic port or in other words to convert
the procedure to laparoscopy, it was considered important
that the slave manipulator could have provision to
accommodate larger size tools. Modularity and portability
were taken as one of the most important aspects aiming
dissipation in outpatient departments. Therefore, while force
capabilities of the system might certainly be less than a
general full scale surgical robotic systems, they are enough
to allow even the conventional laparoscopic procedures.

The Authors are with the Dept. of Mechanics and Machine Design of the
University of Genova, PMARlab Robotics, via Opera pia 15A, Genoa, Italy.
Emails: {dangella, akhan, cepolina, zoppi, molfino}@dimec.unige.it
B. Robotic instrument requirements
Since manually operated assisting tools are also employed
in addition to the tools operated by the robotic arm [5], 3 or
less robotic arms each carrying a surgical tool or scope are
used even in the case of 4 port laparoscopy or needlescopy.
As 2 port needlescopy as well as laparoscopy is becoming
more prevalent due to the evolution of the surgical
procedures, even two robotic arms should be sufficient.
Hence, according to a standardized method, in an ideal bi-
manual setup involving active and assisting instruments,
instruments should be placed at equal azimuth angles along
a semi circular line (about 160 to 180 mm long) centered at
the projection of the target organ and with /3 elevation
angle [9], as represented in figure 1. The inter-port distance
can range between 50 mm and 140 mm [10]. The targeted
site should be imaged from 75 mm to 150 mm at /2; so the
scope should be at a right angle to the working plane of the
target organ. The angle between instruments should be
around /3.


Fig.1. Surgical theater with 2 PmarNeedle robots
The workspace required to reach the full extent of the
abdomen cavity, laterally and longitudinally, is a cone of
angle /3 and /2 respectively [11]. Surgeons spend 95% of
M



the time in a conical workspace with vertex angle of /3.
The extrusion of 90 mm is adequate. In fact in percentile
time for a typical operation much less extrusion range is
utilized.
Consequently forces and moments allowed by the
standard needlescopic instruments were calculated jointly
with minimally invasive surgeons from the S.Martino
Hospital in Genova. The lateral and axial max forces
considered adequate are 2.5 N and 2 N respectively with 18
mm lateral flexing. The moments on the instrument are 370
Nmm orthogonal to the axis and 50 Nmm axial. Bending
Stress 500 N/mm
2
, distance instrument-tip incision 150
mm.
The next section introduces first the PmarNeedle kinematic
architecture and model; then the dynamic model of the
robotic instrument. The third section is dedicated to the
control system design, simulation and results.
II. PMARNEEDLE MATHEMATICAL MODELS
A. Kinematics architecture and model
The architecture of the PmarNeedle is shown in figure 2.
It is 4-dof 2(RRR)R||R hybrid [12], synthesized on the base
of the surgical requirements. The two arms have different
geometry and very different designs to guarantee the largest
collision-free workspace. The mechanism can be
decomposed in two sub-mechanisms: A base mechanism
with spherical structure and an upper mechanism connecting
the 2 arms of the base structure. With reference to figure 2,
Table I recalls the symbols used to describe the mechanism.
TABLE I
PMARNEEDLE MECHANISM TERMINOLOGY
Links R-J oints
Base structure
12 23 12 23
A A B B
L L L L
base frame
1 2 1 2
A A B B

Upper structure
34 45 34 45
A A B B
L L L L
4 5 4 5
A A B B
surgical tool

The motion of the end-effector (surgical tool) is of the
type SP (spherical-prismatic) with the center of the spherical
motion placed in correspondence to the keyhole: the
instrument tilts about the keyhole, rotates about its axis
(torsion) and translates parallel to its axis (extrusion). The
motion pattern is exactly the one allowed to the instrument
and there is no possibility of control errors resulting in
translation of the surgical instrument transversally to the
keyhole that could cause injure to the patient (as it could
happen with a serial 6-dof or 7-dof robot controlled to
satisfy the keyhole constraint) [13]. Other main
characteristics are compactness because at least two modules
are placed near each other on the patients body so that the
instruments they carry can work in the same surgical
workspace, absence of singularities within the workspace,
collision free mechanism obtained with simple links design,
good force transmission in the whole workspace.
Figure 2 shows the PmarNeedle physical mock-up
together with its kinematic architecture, The detailed
geometry parameters are reported in [14], [15]. Roughly
speaking the PKM mechanism is included in a sphere of
150mm diameter.


Fig.2. PmarNeedle prototype and kinematic architecture with terminology

Figure 3 introduces the main reference frames and
kinematic parameters for the upper and base sub-
mechanisms.

Fig.3. The two sub-mechanisms of the PmarNeedle: (a) upper structure; (b)
base structure

We use the rotating reference frame for ease and
apply the method detailed in [14]. The input-output velocity
equations can be simplified considering that the and
0 0 0
Oi j k
0
i
0
j components of the translation velocity are always zero
due to and we can consider the simplified end-effector
twist
0
W
with the only three rotational and translational
components. Considering the screws reciprocal to all except
the actuated screws for each case of actuation, the velocity
equation can be expressed as following:
0
k
Z =


Where:

1 2 1 2
T
A A B B
=

Z , ,
1 2 1 2
T
A A B B
=


0
0
A
B

=


K

K
, 1 2 3
2 1 3
k k k 0

0 k k k
L L L
L
L L L

=


K




( )
2 3 4
1 2 3
45
k k k
k k
L L L
T
L L L
L
r

,
( )
1 3 4
2 1 3
45
k k k
k k
L L L
T
L L L
L
r

L indicates the legs A and B, 45
L
r
is the distance between
45 0
L

and O.
From the above equation, end-effector velocities can be
obtained if actuator rotational velocities are known, and
similarly vice versa.
B. Dynamic model
The nine mobile links of the robot are modeled in
Simulink with numerical information on geometry,
architecture and mass characteristics: the position of the
center of gravity (CG), the joints positions and orientations,
the mass and inertia matrix. These data are extracted from
the 3D model of each component with the final design.
A brief recall of the modeling procedure follows. It is
referred to the A12 link of the base sub-mechanism.
The arrangements of the actuators at the joints A1 and A2
are shown in figure 4 together with the A12 link.


(a)

(b)
Fig. 4. A1 (a), A2 (b) joints and A12 link 3D models

TABLE II
MASS PROPERTIES OF LINK A12 +A2 ACTUATOR
CG position in the
A12 link reference
[mm]
Mass [g] Inertia matrix in A12
link reference [kgmm
2
]
[130,25 57,23 30,67]

122,80
130,248 5,062 4,822
5,062 51,010 42,504
4,822 42,504 105,510

The model of the link, taking into account the material
and the electric actuator applied to the A2 joint, is then
complete. The same procedure is repeated for all nine links
of the robot, all considered rigid bodies.
The multibody model of the mechanism has been
implemented in the Sim-Mechanics environment by
assembling the kinematic chains of the single arms, link by
link, in an initial configuration matching an initial
configuration of the 3D model of the robot with the final
design. For each kinematic chain composed, simulation tests
in open loop have been run to check that each sub-
mechanism had proper dynamic behavior at step and
sinusoidal actuation. Figure 5 gives an idea of the interface.



Fig. 5. Robot dynamic model in the Simulink simulation environment

The most critical step was the complete assembly of the
robot.
To complete the Simulink assembly, the first task was to
set in the desired starting position the 3D model of the
assembled robot in Pro/Engineer. The angles of each of the
ten revolute joints were measured in the considered initial
configuration and used for comparison and debug of the
Simulink model.
The numerical values of the geometry parameters are
inserted in the body blocks together with the initial position
and information related to the design of the components. All
quantities have been loaded with high precision mainly:
to guarantee and speed up the converge of the solver
algorithm of Sim-Mechanics in the assembly calculation;
to limit, at the initial instant of the simulation, the
mismatch between the output of the inverse kinematics
block and the assembly configuration determined by the
solver.
The two kinematic chains of the robot have been
assembled separately and then assembled at joint B5; at the
starting time, the resulting error was lower than 10
-3
mm.
This is a good result if is considered that the position of B5
is determined by 18 geometric parameters along the arm B
and 19 along the arm A, as shown in figure 7.
III. CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN
A. Control logics
The PKM mechanisms are dynamically coupled systems
but in the actual case the coupling terms result negligible
due to the low masses of the instrument and low working
speed.





Fig. 7. Block scheme of robots mechanical components

The first step has been to determine the transfer function
using the dynamic model simplified, whenever possible, by
reducing the inertia of the components at the actuated joint
axes. A PD controller has been used with control parameters
determined for each joint. The results obtained are
satisfactory as shown in the Bode diagram in figure 8.


Fig. 8. Dynamic characteristic of actuator systeminstalled on joint A1

Filters compensating the PKM main non-linearities have
been also defined based on the derived dynamic model.
B. Results
The robot model has been successfully completed. Test
reports confirm that the model perform the required tasks
with accuracy and a good margin of stability. The model has
also shown consistent in terms of power consumption,
forces, and torque values.
The block diagram for the final model comprises virtual
sensors providing helpful indications used to monitor the
motion of the robot. These sensors allow to compare
surgical tools position and velocity (real) with the required
one (desired) determined by operators joystick input
signals. This allows to appreciate the accuracy with which
the surgical tool draws the trajectories commanded by the
input device and how the situation changes with the control
system parameters. As an example, figure 9 shows the
model of the sensor measuring the linear movement of the
surgical tip (extrusion). This value is computed along the Z
axis of the tool, coinciding all along the trajectory with its
physical axis due to the PKM special architecture.

Fig. 9 Model of the extrusion sensor

Virtual sensors for the Euler angles

describing
the orientation of the surgical tool have been realized as well
as for the other surgical tool state variables.
Different command input functions on the input variables
d
z
d d d

have been used to extensively test the
system behavior. The system response is stable and accurate
also to severe tests that move the tool extrusion at the speed
of 170 mm/s that is beyond the speed adopted during a
surgical operation.
TABLE III
COMMAND SIGNALS FROM THE MASTER TO THE PMARNEEDLE SLAVE

d
Sinusoid 0-360 at 1 rad/s

d

Ramp at 20/s

d
Sinusoid 0-40 at 4,2 rad/s
z
d
Sinusoid -30-+30 at 3 rad/s


Figure 10 shows a detail of this extrusion velocity
variable trend to the input signals in table III





Fig. 10. Detail of the extrusion velocity sensor in mm/s on time s

Figure 11 reports the outputs of the instrument to input
signals with the characteristics that have been suggested
from surgeons, see table IV. No compensation of the non-
linearities is adopted.


(a) XYZ position of the surgical tool tip in mmversus time [s]

(b) [] of the surgical tool tip versus time [s]

(c) Speed in mm/s of the surgical tool tip versus time [s]

(d) Current [A] at the 4 motors in the PmarNeedle joints

Fig. 11. Results relative to the test input in Table III

TABLE IV
COMMAND SIGNALS FROM THE MASTER TO THE PMARNEEDLE SLAVE

d
Ramp at 20 /s

d

Sinusoid 0-20 at 5rad/s

d
Ramp at 20/s
z
d
Sinusoid -15-+15 at 3rad/s


Tests with gravity compensation were also run. The
results on position and velocity of the surgical tool are very
similar while the actuators current and driving moments are
different. The graphics of figure 12 refer to the same input
indicated in Table IV; the compensating moments are not
reported.
In this case the output variables are improved and the
maximum velocities are limited within 120 mm/s that is high
for a surgical operation


Fig. 12. Current [A] at the 4 motors in the PmarNeedle joints obtained in the
case of gravity terms compensation, relative to the test input in Table IV

IV. CONCLUSIONS
The model realized demonstrated to give a realistic
insight on the surgical tool dynamic behavior and useful for
the control system design. Different control logics have been
tested and simple PD control resulted satisfactory, beyond
the surgeons expectation.
Based on the multibody dynamic model, gravity terms
compensation filter was designed and implemented in the
environment Simulink-SimMechanics; it allowed to improve
the system behavior.
The PmarNeedle physical mock-up has been realized in
rapid prototyping and new control tests are planned to
evaluate the efficiency and robustness of the designed
control in the real environment.
The model is the first block on which building a
comprehensive simulator of the surgical system for the
systematic testing of surgical trajectories in presence of
external surgical forces, with flexible tool to assess the



response of the manipulator to tool-patient interactions not
part of the surgery, to study the cooperation of two and three
manipulators and the effect of realistic piloting from a
surgeon.
REFERENCES
[1] J . Luo, Z. Cai, Y. Huang, Int. J . Surgical Practice 4(1), 17 (2000)
[2] K H Hong, Y K KimIntraoral removal of the submandibular gland: a
new surgical approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000 J un ;122
(6):798-802
[3] I. Fabio, A.M. Simes, P. Srgio, N.A. Pupo, N.R. Maria, P.J .
Aristodemo, Revista do Hospital das Clnicas 56, 115 (2001)
[4] K. Lee, C. Poon, K. Leung, D. Lee, C. Ko, Int. J . Hong Kong Med.
J our. 11, 30 (2005)
[5] P.R. Reardon, J .I. Kamelgard, B. Applebaum, L. Rossman, F.C.
Brunicardi, World J ournal of Surgery 23, 128 (1999)
[6] M. Look, S.P. Chew, Y.C. Tan, S.E. Liew, D.M. Cheong, S.B.W. J . C.
Tan, C.H. Teh, C.H. Low, J ournal of the Royal College of Surgeons of
Edinburgh 46, 138 (2001)
[7] N. Tagaya, R. Kyu, K. Kubota, Int. J . of Laparoendoscopic & Adv.
Surg. Techn. 12(3), 213(2002)
[8] J . Brown, J . Rosen, L. Chang, M. Sinanan, B. Hannaford, Int. J .
Studies in health technology and informatics (2004)
[9] G. Ferzli, A. Fingerhut, Int. J . of the American College of Surgeons
198(1), 163 (2004)
[10] M. Cavusoglu, I. Villanueva, F. Tendick, in Int. Conf.
IEEE/RSJ :IROS (HI, USA, 2001)
[11] M. Lum, J . Rosen, B. Hannaford, M. Sinanan, Int. J . IEEE Trans. on
Biomed. Engg. 53(7), 1140 (2006)
[12] M. Khan, M. Zoppi, R. Molfino, 4-dof parallel architecture for
laparoscopic surgery (Springer Netherlands, 2008). DOI 10.1007/978-
1-4020-8600-7
[13] M. Zoppi, D. Zlatanov, and R. Molfino. On the velocity analysis of
interconnected chains mechanisms. Int. J . Mechanismand Machine
Theory, 41(11):13461358, 2006
[14] M. Zoppi, A. Khan, F. Schaefer, and R. Molfno. Towards lean
minimally invasive robotic surgery. Robotica, Volume 28 , Issue 2
(March 2010) Pages: 185-197
[15] M.A. Khan, Development of a slave manipulator with parallel
architecture for needlescopic surgery, PhD thesis University of
Genova, 2009