Research Papers

A Passive Parallel Master–Slave Mechanism for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Interventions

[+] Author and Article Information
Santhi Elayaperumal

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
e-mail: santhie@stanford.edu

Mark R. Cutkosky

Fellow ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
e-mail: cutkosky@stanford.edu

Pierre Renaud

CNRS-INSA-Strasbourg University,
Strasbourg 67000, France
e-mail: pierre.renaud@insa-strasbourg.fr

Bruce L. Daniel

Department of Radiology,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
e-mail: bdaniel@stanford.edu

KMS Bearings, Inc., Anaheim, CA.

Xi’an Hua Ying Te Bearing Co., Ltd., Shaanxi Province, China.

THK Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI.

ATI Industrial Automation, Apex, NC.

M4-50, Mark-10 Corp., Copiague, NY.

Manuscript received December 23, 2013; final manuscript received October 12, 2014; published online November 26, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Carl Nelson.

J. Med. Devices 9(1), 011008 (Mar 01, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: MED-13-1302; doi: 10.1115/1.4028944 History: Received December 23, 2013; Revised October 12, 2014; Online November 26, 2014

A passive, parallel master–slave mechanism is presented for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided interventions in the pelvis. The mechanism allows a physician to stand outside the MRI scanner while manipulating a needle inside the bore and, unlike a powered robot, does not place actuators in proximity to the patient. The manipulator combines two parallel mechanisms based on the Delta robot architecture. The mechanism also includes a two-axis gimbal to allow for tool angulation, giving a total of five degrees of freedom so that the physician can insert and steer a needle using continuous natural arm and wrist movements, unlike simple needle guides. The need for access between the patient’s legs and within the MRI scanner leads to an unusual asymmetric design in which the sliding prismatic joints form the vertices of an isosceles triangle. Kinematic analysis shows that the dexterity index of this design is improved over the desired workspace, as compared to an equilateral design. The analysis is extended to estimate the effect of friction and model the input:output force transmission. Prototypes, with final dimensions selected for transperineal prostate interventions, showed force transmission behavior as predicted by simulation, and easily withstood maximum forces required for tool insertion.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Kozlowski, P., Chang, S. D., Jones, E. C., Berean, K. W., Chen, H., and Goldenberg, S. L., 2006, “Combined Diffusion-Weighted and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis–Correlation With Biopsy and Histopathology,” J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 24(1), pp. 108–113. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beyersdorff, D., Winkel, A., Hamm, B., Lenk, S., Loening, S. A., and Taupitz, M., 2005, “MR Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy With a Closed MR Unit at 1.5 T: Initial Results,” Radiology, 234(2), pp. 576–581. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zangos, S., Herzog, C., Eichler, K., Hammerstingl, R., Lukoschek, A., Guthmann, S., Gutmann, B., Schoepf, U. J., Costello, P., and Vogl, T. J., 2007, “MR-Compatible Assistance System for Punction in a High-Field System: Device and Feasibility of Transgluteal Biopsies of the Prostate Gland,” Eur. Radiol., 17(4), pp. 1118–1124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Muntener, M., Patriciu, A., Petrisor, D., Schär, M., Ursu, D., Song, D. Y., and Stoianovici, D., 2008, “Transperineal Prostate Intervention: Robot for Fully Automated MR Imaging—System Description and Proof of Principle in a Canine Model,” Radiology, 247(2), pp. 543–549. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fischer, G. S., Iordachita, I., Csoma, C., Tokuda, J., Dimaio, S. P., Tempany, C. M., Hata, N., and Fichtinger, G., 2008, “MRI-Compatible Pneumatic Robot for Transperineal Prostate Needle Placement,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., 13(3), pp. 295–305. [CrossRef]
Elhawary, H., Zivanovic, A., Rea, M., Davies, B., Besant, C., McRobbie, D., de Souza, N., Young, I., and Lampérth, M., 2006, “The Feasibility of MR-Image Guided Prostate Biopsy Using Piezoceramic Motors Inside or Near to the Magnet Isocentre,” 9th International Conference of Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI 2006), Copenhagen, Denmark, Oct. 1–6, pp. 519–526. [CrossRef]
Yu, N., Hollnagel, C., Blickenstorfer, A., Kollias, S., and Riener, R., 2008, “fMRI-Compatible Robotic Interfaces With Fluidic Actuation,” Robotics: Science and Systems IV, Zurich, Switzerland, June 25–28.
Awtar, S., Trutna, T. T., Nielsen, J. M., Abani, R., and Geiger, J., 2010, “FlexDex: A Minimally Invasive Surgical Tool With Enhanced Dexterity and Intuitive Control,” ASME J. Med. Devices, 4(3), p. 035003. [CrossRef]
Glachet, C., Francois, D., Tentelier, J., and Frioux, C., 1985, “Master-Slave Type Telescopic Telemanipulator,” U.S. Patent No. 4,493,598.
Honegger, M., Codourey, A., and Burdet, E., 1997, “Adaptive Control of the Hexaglide, a 6 Dof Parallel Manipulator,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Albuquerque, NM, Apr. 20–25, pp. 543–548. [CrossRef]
Clavel, R., 1991, “Conception d’un robot parallèle rapide à 4 degrés de liberté,” Ph.D. thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Merlet, J.-P., 2000, Parallel Robots, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Gosselin, C., 1985, “Kinematic Analysis, Optimization and Programming of Parallel Robotic Manipulators,” Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Tsai, L., and Tahmasebi, F., 1993, “Synthesis and Analysis of a New Class of Six-Degree-of-Freedom Parallel Minimanipulators,” J. Rob. Syst., 10(5), pp. 561–580. [CrossRef]
Zanganeh, K. E., and Angeles, J., 1997, “Kinematic Isotropy and the Optimum Design of Parallel Manipulators,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 16(2), pp. 185–197. [CrossRef]
Giberti, H., Righettini, P., and Tasora, A., 2001, “Design and Experimental Test of a Pneumatic Translational 3dof Parallel Manipulator,” 10th International WorkShop on Robotics in Alpe-AdriaDanube Region (RAAD-2001), Vienna, Austria, May 16–19.
Tsai, L.-W., and Joshi, S., 2002, “Kinematic Analysis of 3-DOF Position Mechanisms for Use in Hybrid Kinematic Machines,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 124(2), pp. 245–253. [CrossRef]
Callegari, M., and Marzetti, P., 2004, “Kinematic Characterisation of a 3-PUU Parallel Robot,” Intelligent Manipulation and Grasping (IMG04), Genova, Italy, June 30–July 1, pp. 377–382.
Li, Y., and Xu, Q., 2006, “Kinematic Analysis and Design of a New 3-DOF Translational Parallel Manipulator,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128(4), pp. 729–737. [CrossRef]
Merlet, J.-P., and Gosselin, C., 2008, “Parallel Mechanisms and Robots,” Springer Handbook of Robotics, B.Siciliano and O.Khatib, eds., Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 269–285.
Lee, D., Kim, J., and Seo, T., 2012, “Optimal Design of 6-DOF Eclipse Mechanism Based on Task-Oriented Workspace,” Robotica, 30(7), pp. 1041–1048. [CrossRef]
Gallardo-Alvarado, J., Alici, G., and Rodríguez-Castro, R., 2012, “A Novel Three Degrees of Freedom Partially Decoupled Robot With Linear Actuators,” Robotica, 30(3), pp. 467–475. [CrossRef]
Merlet, J. P., 2006, “Jacobian, Manipulability, Condition Number, and Accuracy of Parallel Robots,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128(1), pp. 199–206. [CrossRef]
Kim, J.-O., and Khosla, P., 1991, “Dexterity Measures for Design and Control of Manipulators,” IEEE/RSJ International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS '91), Osaka, Japan, Nov. 3–5, pp. 758–763. [CrossRef]
Gosselin, C., and Angeles, J., 1991, “A Global Performance Index for the Kinematic Optimization of Robotic Manipulators,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 113(3), pp. 220–226. [CrossRef]
Stocco, L. J., Salcudean, S. E., and Sassani, F., 1997, “Mechanism Design for Global Isotropy With Applications to Haptic Interfaces,” ASME Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Dallas, TX, Nov. 15–21, pp. 115–122.
Eslami, S., Fischer, G. S., Song, S.-E., Tokuda, J., Hata, N., Tempany, C. M., and Iordachita, I., 2013, “Towards Clinically Optimized MRI-Guided Surgical Manipulator for Minimally Invasive Prostate Percutaneous Interventions: Constructive Design,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Karlsruhe, Germany, May 6–10, pp. 1228–1233. [CrossRef]
Podder, T., Clark, D., Sherman, J., Fuller, D., Messing, E., Rubens, D., Strang, J., Brasacchio, R., Liao, L., Ng, W.-S., and Yu, Y., 2006, “In Vivo Motion and Force Measurement of Surgical Needle Intervention During Prostate Brachytherapy,” Med. Phys., 33(8), pp. 2915–2922. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dumoulin, C. L., Souza, S. P., and Darrow, R. D., 1993, “Real-Time Position Monitoring of Invasive Devices Using Magnetic Resonance,” Magn. Reson. Med., 29(3), pp. 411–415. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ho, M., Member, S., McMillan, A. B., Simard, J. M., Gullapalli, R., Desai, J. P., and Member, S., 2012, “Toward a Meso-Scale SMA-Actuated MRI-Compatible Neurosurgical Robot,” IEEE Trans. Rob., 28(1), pp. 213–222. [CrossRef]
Sutherland, G. R., McBeth, P. B., and Louw, D. F., 2003, “NeuroArm: An MR Compatible Robot for Microsurgery,” Int. Congr. Ser., 1256, pp. 504–508. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Illustration of the double Delta-based (three P-U-U) manipulator with two-axis gimbals (+2 R). Design parameters such as the angle between the prismatic axes and strut lengths can be changed to improve manipulability in the workspace of interest.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of half the double parallel mechanism, with joint and end-effector positions labeled. For clarity of the illustration, only some universal joint axes are indicated. Gimbal not shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

End-view diagrams of the manipulator to illustrate dimensions of interest. Note: LSj and LPj (j = 1, 2) lie in the XY plane because the platform does not tilt or twist; and the strut lengths are not purely in the XY plane. S1, S2, and S3 represent the slider locations, and P1, P2, and P3 represent the corners of the platform. In the equilateral case, r intersects the origin at the triangle centroid, in the isosceles case, r intersects the circumcenter.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Manipulability polyhedra as viewed in the XY plane and isometrically for manipulators with the following parameters: (a) a = b = 60 deg, LS2 = 0.178 m, LT1 = LT2 = 0.152 m, and LP2/LS2=0.36. (b) a = 45, b = 90 deg, LS2 = 0.171 m, LT1 = LT2 = 0.135 m, and LP2/LS2=0.44.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Isotropy measure throughout the workspace ±4 cm from the origin for an equilateral tip-up and isosceles tip-down design as shown in the photos. Values close to 1 imply high isotropy. RIM calculated is for w ± 4 cm and Nw = 900. (Top) Equilateral parameters: a = b = 60 deg, LS2 = 0.191 m, LT1 = LT2 = 0.152 m, and LP2/LS2=0.40. (Bottom) Isosceles parameters (tip-down): a = 45 deg, b = 90 deg, LS2 = 0.203 m, LT1 = 0.117 m, LT2 = 0.165 m, and LP2/LS2=0.4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Regional dexterity index for varying single design parameters, over a workspace ±4 cm from the origin. Values are normalized with respect to frame radius r. Initial design: a = 70 deg, b = 40 deg, LS2 = 0.19 m, LT2 = 0.19 m, and LP2/LS2=0.50. LT1 was changed according to Eq. (14).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Simulation of forces at the slave for an input force of F = (1 N, 1 N, 1 N) at the master, with coefficient of friction μ = 0.05. Manipulator parameters: (top) tip-up equilateral − a = b = 60 deg, LS2 = 0.191 m, LT1 = LT2 = 0.152 m, and LP2/LS2=0.40; (bottom) tip-down isosceles −a = 45 deg, b = 90 deg, LS2 = 0.171 m, LT1 = LT2 = 0.135 m, and LP2/LS2=0.44.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) Prototype on a scanner table with a model patient and torso coil. (b) End-view from patient’s feet, with patient and manipulator in procedure position for transperineal access. (c) Axial localizer image of the pelvis, with prostate outlined. (d) Fast spin echo image (ETL 14, TE 96.9, TR 4205) of the prostate of a canine taken from an animal study using the manipulator to guide a needle to targets in the prostate. Workspace of interest in (a) and (b) outlined as a square in the XY plane.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) Oblique view of the passive masterslave manipulator, annotated with its 3DOF in translation. (b) The mechanism includes a set of gimbals for pitch and yaw rotations. The manipulator thus has five total degrees of freedom, and is shown in different articulations, with the platform (c) up and (d) lower down.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a) Benchtop test showing the manipulator mounted vertically to compare force transmission for input load Fz. (b) Predicted force variations for Fz = 4.9 N and μ = 0.05 over the workspace of interest.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Benchtop maximum loading test apparatus showing prototype 1 with (a) digital force scale at slave end and (b) six-axis sensor at master end to test force capability. Configuration shown is to test Fz loading.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In