Search for: All records

This work presents an interventional planning software to be used in conjunction with a robotic manipulator to perform transrectal MR guided prostate biopsies. The interventional software was designed taking in consideration a generic manipulator used under the two modes of operation: side-firing and end-firing of the biopsy needle. Studies were conducted with urologists using the software to plan virtual biopsies. The results show features of software relevant for operating efficiently under the two modes of operation. 

Prostate biopsy is considered as a definitive way for diagnosing prostate malignancies. Urologists are currently moving towards MR-guided prostate biopsies over conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies for prostate cancer detection. Recently, robotic systems have started to emerge as an assistance tool for urologists to perform MR-guided prostate biopsies. However, these robotic assistance systems are designed for a specific clinical environment and cannot be adapted to modifications or changes applied to the clinical setting and/or workflow. This work presents the preliminary design of a cable-driven manipulator developed to be used in both MR scanners and MR-ultrasound fusion systems. The proposed manipulator design and functionality are evaluated on a simulated virtual environment. The simulation is created on an in-house developed interventional planning software to evaluate the ergonomics and usability. The results show that urologists can benefit from the proposed design of the manipulator and planning software to accurately perform biopsies of targeted areas in the prostate. 

Abstract BackgroundThis study presents user evaluation studies to assess the effect of information rendered by an interventional planning software on the operator's ability to plan transrectal magnetic resonance (MR)‐guided prostate biopsies using actuated robotic manipulators. MethodsAn intervention planning software was developed based on the clinical workflow followed for MR‐guided transrectal prostate biopsies. The software was designed to interface with a generic virtual manipulator and simulate an intervention environment using 2D and 3D scenes. User studies were conducted with urologists using the developed software to plan virtual biopsies. ResultsUser studies demonstrated that urologists with prior experience in using 3D software completed the planning less time. 3D scenes were required to control all degrees‐of‐freedom of the manipulator, while 2D scenes were sufficient for planar motion of the manipulator. ConclusionsThe study provides insights on using 2D versus 3D environment from a urologist's perspective for different operational modes of MR‐guided prostate biopsy systems.