Muscle tissue is most frequently cut or separated in surgery. Waterjet as an emerging non-rigid cutting method is newly introduced into soft tissue dissection which shows a great potential in soft muscle cutting for low-trauma surgery. However, the cutting mechanisms of muscle material to waterjet impact remain unknown. This study reports the cutting responses of muscle tissue to waterjet impact. Waterjet morphology, depths of cut, cutting surface morphology and deformation of muscles were experimentally investigated using a computer-controlled waterjet machine. The mechanical properties of muscles were also measured to explore the property-processing relation. The conversion relationship between kinetic energy of waterjet and potential energy of muscle damage was established based on energy balance theory. Based on the experimental investigation and fracture mechanism analysis, the critical and the reasonable waterjet separation pressures for the muscles were respectively 0.8–1.1 MPa and 1.4–2.0 MPa for balancing separation efficiency and surrounding tissue protection. It was also found the muscle depth of cut under waterjet impact significantly increased with the impact pressure, but rapidly reduced with the increase in impact angle and transverse speed. In addition, a new phenomenon of swelling effect of the muscles was discovered in waterjet impact, which heavily affects the depths of cut. The proper stand-off distance was determined considering the muscle swelling effect and initial segment of waterjet. This research first provides practical insights into the process selection and quality control for waterjet cutting of soft muscles, advancing the clinical application of waterjet to muscle separation.
ZhuangPAnJChuaCK, et al. Bioprinting of 3D in vitro skeletal muscle models: a review. Mater Des2020; 193: 108794.
2.
LiuZLiaoZWangD, et al. Recent advances in soft biological tissue manipulating technologies. Chin J Mech Eng2022; 35: 89.
3.
QinXZhangBFengY, et al. Outcomes of visualized puncture needle and small needle-knife therapy in primary frozen shoulder based on multimodal ultrasound imaging. J Healthc Eng2022; 16: 1076112.
4.
FengCYaoJXieY, et al. Small needle-knife versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon2024; 10: e24229.
5.
LiouJTLiuFCHsinST, et al. Broken needle in the cervical spine: a previously unreported complication of Xiaozendao acupuncture therapy. J Altern Complement Med2007; 13: 129–132.
6.
LiuXLiangZWenG, et al. Waterjet machining and research developments: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 102: 1257–1335.
7.
NatarajanYMurugesanPKMohanM, et al. Abrasive water jet machining process: a state of art of review. J Manuf Process2020; 49: 271–322.
8.
RajPChattopadhyayaSMondalA. A review on continuous and pulsed water jet machining. Mater Today Proc2020; 27: 2596–2604.
9.
SongXFZhaoJYanH, et al. Waterjet machining of biological tissues in medical surgeries: from soft tissue dissection to bone cutting. J Manuf Process2023; 107: 529–548.
10.
LiuZWuFGuH, et al. Adhesion failure and anti-adhesion bionic structure optimization of surgical electrodes in soft tissue cutting. J Manuf Process2023; 89: 444–457.
11.
DesaiMMSinghAAbhishekS, et al. Aquablation therapy for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single-centre experience in 47 patients. BJU Int2018; 121: 945–951.
12.
AhmedAPaleelaPPavan KumarPB, et al. A randomized comparative study of CUSA and waterjet in liver resections. Indian J Surg2022; 84: 390–397.
13.
KeinerDHeimannAKronfeldA, et al. Resection of C6 gliomas in rats with the aid of the waterjet technique. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2016; 146: 57–63.
14.
OzekiYHirasawaKIkedaR, et al. Safety and efficacy of water pressure endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors with submucosal fibrosis (with video). Gastrointest Endosc2021; 94: 607–617.
15.
KawasakiYIinoSIdichiT, et al. Anatomic indications for using actuator-driven pulsed water jet for hepatectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech2020; 30: e33–e38.
16.
NakayashikiAKawaguchiTNakagawaA, et al. Water veil effect to control splashing from the pulsed water jet device: minimizing the potential risk of dissemination using surgical aspirators. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg2018; 79: 309–315.
17.
PiocheMCiocirlanMLépilliezV, et al. High-pressure jet injection of viscous solutions for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a study on ex vivo pig stomachs. Surg Endosc2014; 28: 1742–1747.
18.
TschanCATschanKKraussJK, et al. New applicator improves waterjet dissection quality. Br J Neurosurg2010; 24: 641–647.
19.
SchlenkCSchwierAHeissM, et al. Design of a robotic instrument for minimally invasive waterjet surgery. In: 2019 International symposium on medical robotics (ISMR), Atlanta, 3–5 April 2019, pp.1–7. New York: IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ISMR.2019.8710186
20.
CaoCZhaoJLiG, et al. Separation behaviour difference between gelatin and porcine liver under high-speed waterjet impact. IEEE Access2019; 7: 172021–172029.
21.
SeokJOhCTKwonHJ, et al. Investigating skin penetration depth and shape following needle-free injection at different pressures: a cadaveric study. Lasers Surg Med2016; 48: 624–628.
22.
BaxterJMitragotriS. Jet-induced skin puncture and its impact on needle-free jet injections: experimental studies and a predictive model. J Control Release2005; 106: 361–373.
23.
AbdouGAtallaN. Applying waterjet technology in surgical procedures. In: Proceedings of the future technologies conference (eds AraiKBhatiaRKapoorS), Vancouver, Canada, 15–16 November 2018, pp.616–625. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-02686-8_46
24.
TagawaYOudalovNEl GhalbzouriA, et al. Needle-free injection into skin and soft matter with highly focused microjets. Lab Chip2013; 13: 1357–1363.
25.
BabaiaslMBoccelliSChenY, et al. Predictive mechanics-based model for depth of cut (DOC) of waterjet in soft tissue for waterjet-assisted medical applications. Med Biol Eng Comput2020; 58: 1845–1872.
26.
MoradSUlbrichtCHarkinP, et al. Modelling and control of a water jet cutting probe for flexible surgical robot. In: 2015 IEEE International conference on automation science and engineering, Gothenburg, Sweden, 24–28 August 2015, pp.1159–1164. New York: IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/CoASE.2015.7294254
27.
CaoCLiGJinX, et al. Continuous fracture of soft tissue under high-speed waterjet impact and its quantification method. Mech Mater2020; 151: 103631.
28.
CaoCLiGZhaoJ. Non-rigid cutting of soft tissue: physical evidences of complex mechanical interaction process of soft materials. Eur Phys J Plus2020; 135: 22.
29.
CaoCZhaoJChaoL, et al. Micro-mechanism study on tissue removal behavior under medical waterjet impact using coupled SPH-FEM. Med Biol Eng Comput2023; 61: 721–737.
30.
BabaiaslMYangFBoccelliS, et al. Fracture-directed waterjet needle steering: design, modeling, and path planning. In: 2020 8th IEEE RAS and EMBS International conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, New York, 29 November–1 December 2020, pp.1166–1173. New York: IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/BioRob49111.2020.9224419
31.
BabaiaslMYangFSwensenJP. Towards water-jet steerable needles. In: 2018 7th IEEE international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, Enschede, Netherlands, 26–29 August 2018, pp.601–608. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/BIOROB.2018.8487984
LvZSongQGaoF, et al. Three-dimensional modeling and simulation of muscle tissue puncture process. Chin J Mech Eng2022; 35: 40.
34.
LiuZWangCChenZ, et al. The advance of surgical blades in cutting soft biological tissue: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2021; 113: 1817–1832.
35.
WangDSongQLiuZ, et al. Cutting characteristics of porcine tenderloin tissue along tangential direction of surface. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018; 98: 17–27.
36.
JiangYSongQGaoF, et al. Needle deformation in the process of puncture surgery: experiment and simulation. Procedia CIRP2020; 89: 270–276.
37.
MoFZhengZZhangH, et al. In vitro compressive properties of skeletal muscles and inverse finite element analysis: comparison of human versus animals. J Biomech2020; 109: 109916.
38.
CaoCZhaoJLiG. Matching design method for exit parameters of medical waterjet generating device. J Mech Eng2022; 58: 293–300.
39.
HashemiSSAsgariMRasoulianA. An experimental study of nonlinear rate-dependent behaviour of skeletal muscle to obtain passive mechanical properties. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2020; 234: 590–602.
40.
GhoreishyMHR. Determination of the parameters of the Prony series in hyper-viscoelastic material models using the finite element method. Mater Des2012; 35: 791–797.
41.
ZwirnerJOndruschkaBScholzeM, et al. Passive load-deformation properties of human temporal muscle. J Biomech2020; 106: 109829.
42.
KarimiAShojaeiA. An experimental study to measure the mechanical properties of the human liver. Dig Dis2017; 36: 150–155.
43.
Ní AnnaidhABruyèreKDestradeM, et al. Characterization of the anisotropic mechanical properties of excised human skin. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2012; 5: 139–148.
44.
DahotreNJoshiS. Physical and biological effects of orthopedic surgery. In: DahotreNBJoshiSS (eds), Machining of bone and hard tissues. Berlin: Springer, 2016, pp.14–17.
45.
den DunnenSKraaijGBiskupC, et al. Pure waterjet drilling of articular bone: an in vitro feasibility study. J Mech Eng2013; 59: 425–432.
46.
AydinGKarakurtIAydinerK. Prediction of the cut depth of granitic rocks machined by abrasive waterjet (AWJ). Rock Mech Rock Eng2013; 46: 1223–1235.
47.
BahlsTFrohlichFAHellingsA, et al. Extending the capability of using a waterjet in surgical interventions by the use of robotics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2017; 64: 284–294.
48.
GaoDLeiYYaoB. Dynamic soft tissue deformation estimation based on energy analysis. Chin J Mech Eng2016; 29: 1167–1175.
49.
TaylorDO’MaraNRyanE, et al. The fracture toughness of soft tissues. J Mech Behav Biomed2012; 6: 139–147.
50.
OertelJGaabMRPiekJ. Waterjet resection of brain metastases - first clinical results with 10 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol2003; 29: 407–414.
51.
MahvashMDupontPE. Fast needle insertion to minimize tissue deformation and damage. In: 2009 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation, Kobe, Japan, 12–17 May 2009, pp.3097–3102. New York: IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152617
52.
GuhaABarronRMBalachandarR. An experimental and numerical study of water jet cleaning process. J Mater Process Technol2011; 211: 610–618.
