Robotic eye surgery tool changes motion but keeps outcomes the same
A Controlled Comparison of Manual and Teleoperated Intraocular Instrument Motion for an Input Device
RoboticsHuman-Computer Interaction
Summary
This paper looks at how surgeons use their hands compared to a robot controller to move eye surgery instruments. The researchers found that while surgeons achieved the same results with both methods, using the robot took longer and involved more careful, slower motions. Practice helped improve speed and smoothness when using the robot, but the way the hand moved changed a lot, with more finger activity needed. So, switching to a robotic controller doesn’t make surgery easier, but it changes how the surgeon moves the tools while still protecting the eye.
robotic microsurgeryteleoperationintraocular instrumenttrocar constraintophthalmic simulatormovement fragmentationdegrees of freedomsurgical input devicenavigation task
Authors
Korab Hoxha, Mirza Imamovic, Angelo Henriques, M. Ali Nasseri
Abstract
Input devices for robotic microsurgery are frequently described as preserving the surgeon's trained technique, but the claim is rarely measured. We compared manual and teleoperated intraocular instrument motion with the trocar constraint, the instrument, the eye model and the tracking source common to both conditions, so that the control interface was the only factor varied. Prior comparisons cannot hold the instrument fixed, because a robotic instrument is not the tool used manually. Sixteen participants performed a navigation task on a commercial ophthalmic simulator by hand and through a three-degree-of-freedom input device commanding a five-joint robot. Task outcome was equal but at ceiling: every participant acquired all five targets under both interfaces with no retinal or lens injury. Execution differed on every measure. Teleoperated trials took three times as long at a quarter of the median speed, covered less than half the angular working range, and were broken into 3.5 times as many separate movements. Completion time and movement fragmentation improved substantially across four trials of practice and had not plateaued; the measures set by the configured rate ceiling and joint limit changed the least. Finger activity doubled and pinch variability tripled, so reducing instrument degrees of freedom redistributed manual effort rather than reducing it. The interface preserves the outcome and reshapes the execution.