Effect of vibration on insertion force and deflection of bioinspired needle in tissues
Source abstract
Abstract
The design of surgical needles used in biopsy procedures have remained fairly standard despite the increase in complexity of surgeries. Higher needle insertion forces and deflection can increase tissue damage and decrease biopsy sample integrity. To overcome these drawbacks, we present a novel bioinspired approach to reduce insertion forces and minimize needle-tip deflection. It is well known from the literature, design of bioinspired surgical needles results in decreasing insertion forces and needle-tip deflection from the needle insertion path. This technical note studies the influence of vibration on bioinspired needle to further reduce insertion forces and needle-tip deflection. Bioinspired needle geometrical parameters such as barb shapes and geometries were analyzed to determine the best design parameters. Static and dynamic (vibration) needle insertion tests were performed to determine the maximum insertion forces and to estimate needle-tip deflection. Our results show that introducing vibration on the bioinspired needle insertion can reduce the maximum insertion force by up to 50%. It was also found that the needle-tip deflection is decreased by 47%.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Soft Robotics and Applications · Robot Manipulation and Learning · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1109/tra.2003.81704410.1109/tra.2003.817044 ↗
2. Abolhassani N · Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. - Proc. · 2007 · 491
3. 10.1080/1364570060077164510.1080/13645700600771645 ↗
4. 10.1109/tbme.2009.203685610.1109/tbme.2009.2036856 ↗
5. 10.1080/13645706.2017.141875310.1080/13645706.2017.1418753 ↗
6. 10.1002/rcs.13610.1002/rcs.136 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.06.01310.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.06.013 ↗
8. Mahvash M · Proc. - IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. · 2009 · 3097
9. 10.1109/TBME.2004.83154210.1109/TBME.2004.831542 ↗
10. Stellman J · Master Thesis · 2009
11. 10.1115/1.199252810.1115/1.1992528 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.04.00710.1016/j.medengphy.2012.04.007 ↗
13. 10.1109/wcica.2008.459407910.1109/wcica.2008.4594079 ↗
14. 10.1088/1757-899x/42/1/01202010.1088/1757-899x/42/1/012020 ↗
15. Khalaji I · IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. · 2013 · 4099
16. Yan K · Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Comput. Intell. Robot. Autom. CIRA · 2005 · 163
17. 10.1016/s1672-6529(16)60303-710.1016/s1672-6529(16)60303-7 ↗
18. 10.1371/journal.pone.010382310.1371/journal.pone.0103823 ↗
19. Sahlabadi M · Bioinspiration Biomimetics · 2018 · 1310.1088/1748-3190/aaa348 ↗
20. Ramasubramanian M K · Bioinspiration Biomimetics · 2008 · 310.1088/1748-3182/3/4/046001 ↗
21. 10.1038/s41598-017-18522-410.1038/s41598-017-18522-4 ↗
22. 10.1117/12.226139910.1117/12.2261399 ↗
23. 10.1016/s1672-6529(08)60111-010.1016/s1672-6529(08)60111-0 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.sna.2007.06.00710.1016/j.sna.2007.06.007 ↗
25. Clement R S · J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. · 2016 · 55 · 204
26. 10.1023/b:bmmd.0000042046.07678.2e10.1023/b:bmmd.0000042046.07678.2e ↗
27. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.12.01110.1016/j.medengphy.2013.12.011 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.01.04010.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.01.040 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.08.00710.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.08.007 ↗
30. Xia H · IEEE Int. Conf. Mechatronics Autom. ICMA · 2009 · 164
31. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.02.01110.1016/j.medengphy.2017.02.011 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.07810.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.078 ↗
33. Misra S · Proc. 2nd Bienn. IEEE/RAS-EMBS Int. Conf. Biomed. Robot. Biomechatronics · 2008 · 22410.1109/BIOROB.2008.4762872 ↗