**Haptic Medical Modelling and Applications**

16 Will-be-set-by-IN-TECH

130 Haptics Rendering and Applications

Howard, B. M. & Vance, J. M. (2007). Desktop haptic virtual assembly using physically based

Kim, Y. J., Otaduy, M. A., Lin, M. C. & Manocha, D. (2003). Six-degree-of-freedom haptic

Li, M. & Liu, Y.-H. (2006). Haptic modeling and experimental validation for interactive

McNeely, W. A., Puterbaugh, K. D. & Troy, J. J. (1999). Six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering

Möller, T. & Trumbore, B. (1997). Fast, minimum storage ray-triangle intersection, *Journal of*

Ortega, M., Redon, S. & Coquillart, S. (2006). A six degree-of-freedom god-object method for haptic display of rigid bodies, *IEEE Virtual Reality Conference*, pp. 191–198. Otaduy, M. A. & Lin, M. (2006). A modular haptic rendering algorithm for stable and transparent 6-dof manipulation, *IEEE Transactions on Robotics* 22(4): 751–762. Otaduy, M. A. & Lin, M. C. (2003). Sensation preserving simplification for haptic rendering,

Renz, M., Preusche, C., Pötke, M., Kriegel, H.-P. & Hirzinger, G. (2001). Stable

Ruspini, D. C., Kolarov, K. & Khatib, O. (1997). Haptic interaction in virtual environments,

Salisbury, J. K., Brock, D. L., Massie, T., Swarup, N. & Zilles, C. (1995). Haptic rendering:

Savall, J., Borro, D., Gil, J. J. & Matey, L. (2002). Description of a haptic system for virtual

Savall, J., Martín, J. & Avello, A. (2008). High performance linear cable transmission, *Journal*

Shimoga, K. B. (1992). Finger force and touch feedback issues in dextrous telemanipulation,

Zilles, C. & Salisbury, J. (1995). A constraint-based god-object method for haptic display,

haptic interaction with virtual environments using an adapted voxmap-pointshell

*IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems*, Vol. 1, Grenoble, France,

Programming touch interaction with virtual objects, *ACM Symposium on Interactive*

maintainability in aeronautics, *IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and*

*Fourth Annual Conference on Intelligent Robotic Systems for Space Exploration*,

*International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Human Robot Interaction, and*

rendering using incremental and localized computations, *Presence: Teleoperators and*

endodontic simulation, *IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation*,

using voxel sampling, *ACM SIGGRAPH - Computer Graphics*, Los Angeles, California,

modelling, *Virtual Reality* 11(4): 207–215.

*Virtual Environments* 12(3): 277–295.

Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 3292–3297.

*ACM Transactions on Graphics* 22(3): 543–553.

algorithm, *Eurohaptics*, Birmingham, UK, pp. 149–154.

*3D Graphics*, Monterey, California, USA, pp. 123–130.

*Systems*, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 2887–2892.

*of Mechanical Design* 130(6).

*Cooperative Robots*, Vol. 3, pp. 146–151.

*Graphics Tools (JGT)* 2(1): 21–28.

USA, pp. 401–408.

pp. 128–133.

pp. 159–178.

**7** 

*1Italy 2,4Sweden 3Austria* 

**Sensorized Tools for** 

*2Imego AB, Gothenburg, 3Profactor GmbH, Steyr,* 

**Haptic Force Feedback** 

**in Computer Assisted Surgery** 

*4MC2, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,* 

Arne Sieber1,2,3, Keith Houston1,3, Christian Woegerer3, Peter Enoksson4, Arianna Menciassi1 and Paolo Dario1 *1The Bio Robotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa,* 

For centuries, open surgery was the usual way of performing an operation on a patient. Usually large incisions were required, thus this technique was traumatic for the patient and resulted in large scars and long and expensive recovery time. One paradigmatic example is cardiac surgery, where for an open surgery procedure a sternotomy is required, where the surgeon has to open with a saw the patient's sternum to access the heart and create an adequate workspace. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has revolutionized the way surgeries are performed in the last few decades. Here endoscopes and specialized instruments that fit in natural openings in the body or through keyhole incisions (typically 5-12 mm in diameter) are used and meet the patients demand for smaller incisions and

MIS techniques have numerous benefits for patients over open techniques, but unfortunately there are several drawbacks: images are usually captured from a 2D endoscopic camera and displayed on a monitor, thus the surgeon has no stereoscopic view and looses depth perception in the operating field. Another drawback is that holding rigid and long shafted instruments and controlling them at a distance leads to higher fatigue and extremely limited tactile perception. Another severe disadvantage is that mirrored motions from that of the operating field are required, as instruments are pivoting about the incision

An alternative to traditional minimal invasive surgery is robot assisted minimal invasive

surgery. Many disadvantages of manual MIS are overcome with robotics:

**1. Introduction** 

shorter recovery times.

**1.1 Robotic assisted minimal invasive surgery** 

point.
