Magnetic continuum manipulators (MCMs) are a class of continuum robots that can be actuated without direct contact by an external magnetic field. MCMs operating in confined workspaces, such as those targeting medical applications, require flexible magnetic structures that contain combinations of magnetic components and polymers to navigate long and tortuous paths. In cylindrical MCM designs, a significant trade-off exists between magnetic moment and bending flexibility as the ratio between length and diameter decreases. In this study, we propose a new MCM design framework that enables increasing diameter without compromising on flexibility and magnetic moment. Magnetic soft composite helices constitute bending regions of the MCM and are separated by permanent ring magnets. Local dipole interactions between the permanent magnets can reduce bending stiffness, depending on their size and spacing. For the particular segment geometry presented herein, the local dipole interactions result in a 31% increase in angular deflection of composite helices inside an external magnetic field, compared to helices without local interactions. In addition, we demonstrate fabrication, maneuverability, and example applications of a multisegment MCM in a phantom of the abdominal aorta, such as passing contrast dye and guidewires.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Burgner-KahrsJ, RuckerDC, ChosetH. Continuum robots for medical applications: A survey. IEEE Trans Robot, 2015; 31(6):1261–1280.
2.
DupontP, SimaanN, ChosetH, et al.Continuum robots for medical interventions. Proc IEEE, 2022; 110(7):847–870.
3.
VeigaT. da, Chandler JH, Lloyd P, et al. Challenges of continuum robots in clinical context: A review. Prog Biomed Eng, 2020; 2(3):032003.
4.
BrunsTL, RemirezAA, EmersonMA, et al.A modular, multi-arm concentric tube robot system with application to transnasal surgery for orbital tumors. Int J Rob Res, 2021; 40(2–3):521–533.
5.
AtaollahiA, KarimR, FallahAS, et al.Three-degree-of-freedom MR-compatible multisegment cardiac catheter steering mechanism. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2013; 63(11):2425–2435.
6.
AliA, SakesA, ArkenboutEA, et al.Catheter steering in interventional cardiology: Mechanical analysis and novel solution. Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 2019; 233(12):1207–1218.
7.
CampisanoF, CalS, RemirezAA, et al.Closed-loop control of soft continuum manipulators under tip follower actuation. Int J Rob Res, 2021; 40(6–7):923–938.
8.
GarbinN, WangL, ChandlerJH, et al.A disposable continuum endoscope using piston-driven parallel bellow actuator. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Medical Robotics. IEEE: Atlanta, GA, USA; 2018; pp. 1–6.
PancaldiL, DirixP, FanelliA, et al.Flow driven robotic navigation of microengineered endovascular probes. Nat Commun, 2020; 11(1):1–14.
11.
HwangJ, JeonS, KimB, et al.An electromagnetically controllable microrobotic interventional system for targeted, real-time cardiovascular intervention. Adv Healthc Mater, 2022; 11(11):2102529.
12.
Phelan IIIMF, TiryakiME, LazovicJ, et al.Heat-mitigated design and lorentz force-based steering of an MRI-driven microcatheter toward minimally invasive surgery. Adv Sci, 2022; 9(10):2105352.
13.
AziziA, TremblayCC, GagnK, et al.Using the fringe field of a clinical MRI scanner enables robotic navigation of tethered instruments in deeper vascular regions. Sci Robot, 2019; 4(36):eaax7342.
14.
CarpiF, PapponeC. Stereotaxis Niobe magnetic navigation system for endocardial catheter ablation and gastrointestinal capsule endoscopy. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2009; 6(5):487–498.
15.
ChautemsC, TonazziniA, BoehlerQ, et al.Magnetic continuum device with variable stiffness for minimally invasive surgery. Adv Intell Syst, 2020; 2(6):1900086.
16.
CharreyronSL, BoehlerQ, DanunAN, et al.A magnetically navigated microcannula for subretinal injections. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2020; 68(1):119–129.
17.
HeunisCM, BehrendtK, HekmanE, et al.Design and evaluation of a magnetic rotablation catheter for arterial stenosis. IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron, 2021; 27(3):1761–1772.
18.
SikorskiJ, HeunisCM, ObeidR, et al.A flexible catheter system for ultrasound-guided magnetic projectile delivery. IEEE Trans Robot, 2021; 38(3):1959–1972.
19.
MattmannM, De MarcoC, BriaticoF, et al.Thermoset shape memory polymer variable stiffness 4D robotic catheters. Adv Sci, 2022; 9(1):2103277.
20.
LiY, GuoC, XinW, et al.Design and preliminary evaluation of an electromagnetically actuated soft-tethered colonoscope. IEEE Trans Med Robot Bionics, 2021; 3(2):402–413.
21.
MartinJW, ScaglioniB, NortonJC, et al.Enabling the future of colonoscopy with intelligent and autonomous magnetic manipulation. Nat Mach Intell, 2020; 2(10):595–606.
22.
BarducciL, PittiglioG, NortonJC, et al.Adaptive dynamic control for magnetically actuated medical robots. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2019; 4(4):3633–3640.
23.
HwangJ, Kim J-y, ChoiH. A review of magnetic actuation systems and magnetically actuated guidewire-and catheter-based microrobots for vascular interventions. Intell Serv Robot, 2020; 13(1):1–14.
24.
JeonS, HoshiarAK, KimK, et al.A magnetically controlled soft microrobot steering a guidewire in a three-dimensional phantom vascular network. Soft Robot, 2019; 6(1):54–68.
25.
HeunisCM, SikorskiJ, MisraS. Flexible instruments for endovascular interventions: Improved magnetic steering, actuation, and image-guided surgical instruments. IEEE Robot Autom Mag, 2018; 25(3):71–82.
26.
LeVN, NguyenNH, AlamehK, et al.Accurate modeling and positioning of a magnetically controlled catheter tip. Med Phys, 2016; 43(2):650–663.
27.
YangZ, YangL, ZhangM, et al.Magnetic control of a steerable guidewire under ultrasound guidance using mobile electromagnets. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2021; 6(2):1280–1287.
28.
ZhangT, YangL, YangX, et al.Millimeter-scale soft continuum robots for large-angle and high-precision manipulation by hybrid actuation. Adv Intell Syst, 2021; 3(2):2000189.
29.
KimY, YukH, ZhaoR, et al.Printing ferromagnetic domains for untethered fast-transforming soft materials. Nature, 2018; 558(7709):274–279.
30.
WuS, HuW, ZeQ, et al.Multifunctional magnetic soft composites: A review. Multifunct Mater, 2020; 3(4):042003.
31.
KimY, ZhaoX. Magnetic soft materials and robots. Chem Rev, 2022; 122(5):5317–5364.
32.
LumGZ, YeZ, DongX, et al.Shape-programmable magnetic soft matter. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2016; 113(41):E6007–E6015.
33.
LloydP, HoshiarAK, da VeigaT, et al.A learnt approach for the design of magnetically actuated shape forming soft tentacle robots. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2020; 5(3):3937–3944.
34.
WangL, ZhengD, HarkerP, et al.Evolutionary design of magnetic soft continuum robots. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2021; 118(21):e2021922118.
35.
SikorskiJ, HeunisCM, FrancoF, et al.The ARMM system: An optimized mobile electromagnetic coil for non-linear actuation of flexible surgical instruments. IEEE Trans Magn, 2019; 55(9):1–9.
36.
GosselinFP, LalandeV, MartelS. Characterization of the deflections of a catheter steered using a magnetic resonance imaging system. Med Phys, 2011; 38(9):4994–5002.
37.
TillJ, AloiV, RuckerC. Real-time dynamics of soft and continuum robots based on Cosserat rod models. Int J Rob Res, 2019; 38(6):723–746.
38.
EdelmannJ, PetruskaAJ, NelsonBJ. Magnetic control of continuum devices. Int J Rob Res, 2017; 36(1):68–85.
39.
RichterM, VenkiteswaranVK, MisraS. Multi-point orientation control of discretely-magnetized continuum manipulators. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2021; 6(2):3607–3614.
40.
GentAN. On the relation between indentation hardness and Young's modulus. Rubber Chem Technol, 1958; 31(4):896–906.
41.
MooneyM. The viscosity of a concentrated suspension of spherical particles. J Colloid Sci, 1951; 6(2):162–170.
42.
DeswalA, TamangBK, BalaA. Study of aortic-common iliac bifurcation and its clinical significance. J Clin Diagn Res, 2014; 8(7):AC06.
43.
DychesRP, EatonKJ, SmithHF. The roles of celiac trunk angle and vertebral origin in median arcuate ligament syndrome. Diagnostics, 2020; 10(2):76.
44.
EkingenA, HatipogluES, HamidiC. Distance measurements and origin levels of the coeliac trunk, superior mesenteric artery, and inferior mesenteric artery by multiple-detector computed tomography angiography. Anat Sci Int, 2021; 96(1):132–141.
45.
DesaiAB, ShahDS, BhattCJ, et al.Measurement of the distance and angle between the aorta and superior mesenteric artery on CT scan: Values in Indian population in different BMI categories. Ind J Surg, 2015; 77(2):614–617.
46.
ReymondP, MerendaF, PerrenF, et al.Validation of a one-dimensional model of the systemic arterial tree. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physio, 2009; 297(1):H208–H222.
47.
SuhG-Y, ChoiG, HerfkensRJ, et al.Three-dimensional modeling analysis of visceral arteries and kidneys during respiration. Ann Vasc Surg, 2016; 34:250–260.
VenzacB, DengS, MahmoudZ, et al.PDMS curing inhibition on 3D-printed molds: Why? Also, how to avoid it?. J Analyt Chem, 2021; 93(19):7180–7187.
50.
SikorskiJ, DawsonI, DenasiA, et al.Introducing BigMag-A novel system for 3D magnetic actuation of flexible surgical manipulators. Proc Int Conf Robot Autom. IEEE: Marina Bay Sands, Singapore; 2017; pp. 3594–3599.
51.
SikorskiJ, DenasiA, BucchiG, et al.Vision-based 3-D control of magnetically actuated catheter using BigMag—An array of mobile electromagnetic coils. IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron, 2019; 24(2):505–516.
52.
SaggiomoV, VeldersAH. Simple 3D printed scaffold-removal method for the fabrication of intricate microfluidic devices. Adv Sci, 2015; 2(9):1500125.
53.
TaylorCA, ChengCP, EspinosaLA, et al.In vivo quantification of blood flow and wall shear stress in the human abdominal aorta during lower limb exercise. Ann Biomed Eng, 2002; 30(3):402–408.
54.
ErniS, SchrleS, FakhraeeA, et al.Comparison, optimization, and limitations of magnetic manipulation systems. J Microbio Robot, 2013; 8(3–4):107–120.
55.
KimY, GenevriereE, HarkerP, et al.Telerobotic neurovascular interventions with magnetic manipulation. Sci Robot, 2022; 7(65):eabg9907.
56.
GangES, NguyenBL, ShacharY, et al.Dynamically shaped magnetic fields: Initial animal validation of a new remote electrophysiology catheter guidance and control system. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2011; 4(5):770–777.
57.
PenskiyI, GerrattA, BergbreiterS. Friction, adhesion and wear properties of PDMS films on silicon sidewalls. J Micromech Microeng, 2011; 21(10):105013.
58.
LinC, KaperHJ, LiW, et al.Role of endothelial glycocalyx in sliding friction at the catheter-blood vessel interface. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):1–10.
59.
ConnesP, AlexyT, DetterichJ, et al.The role of blood rheology in sickle cell disease. Blood Rev, 2016; 30(2):111–118.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
