Seminar Topics & Project Ideas On Computer Science Electronics Electrical Mechanical Engineering Civil MBA Medicine Nursing Science Physics Mathematics Chemistry ppt pdf doc presentation downloads and Abstract

MEDICAL ROBOTS

Ø An Innovative Product of both BME & Mechanical Engg.

Ø Divided into four groups

1.passive 3.active

2.synergistic 4.master-slave

Ø Master-slave is more preferrable

CAS Vs MEDICAL ROBOTS

¢ CAS is powered by surgeon

¢ NO target area is predefined

¢ used for simulating and planning the operative procedure

¢ Less accurate & unsafe

¢ Medical Robots are powered by motorised system

¢ target area should be predefined

¢ programming of instruments is necessary

¢ Highly accurate & safe

MASTER-SLAVE SYSTEMS

¢ It is a tele-operation system

¢ Non-autonamous in nature

Schematic outline of M-S system

Advantages over

active robots

ü can be handled with soft tissues

ü ergonomic situation of the surgeon can be improved

ü Used for several operative tasks

ü Slave design

ü Master Design

ü should impose a low mass load, about 30 g, on the surgeon's hand

ü it should have unnoticeable friction and damping

ü and have a bandwidth of at least 10 Hz to avoid tiring the surgeon.

LAPAROSCOPIC FORCEPS

¢ FORCEPS is a Small Master-slave System With Only One Degree of Freedom

¢ Control objective of a master-slave system is 'perfect' position tracking of the slave with 'perfect' force reflection at the master

¢ Unilateral system demerits-

i) total lack of visualisation of the slave-side

ii) accurate positioning tasks in complex environments

iii) safe handling of delicate materials

iv) reflecting material characteristics.

SHAPE MEMORY ACTUATORS

¢ Uses the shape memory effect to generate a motion

¢ It is based on the crystal structure of the alloy.

¢ Can be realised by an equilibrium between stress and strain in the wire and the temperature of the wire

¢ In forceps a spring is used to constrain the SMA wire

Not only technical aspects are the reason why robots integrate slower into the surgical theatre than in industrial environments. The most important social aspect is safety. The safety requirements for medical robots are a lot more stringent. Safety of a system can be achieved by active and passive safety mechanisms in the mechanical design of the system. The acceptance of the patients, who are possibly not used to robots,and also the acceptance of surgeons, who have to get familiar with working with robots, are an important aspect for the introduction of robots into the surgical theatre.

MEDICAL ROBOTICS

[attachment=57721]


Definition of MEDICAL ROBOTICS.

MEDICAL ROBOTICS describes a class of robots that is an
intersection of assistive robotics (robots that provide assistance to the user) and socially
interactive robots (robots that can communicate with user through social and non-physical
interaction .Assistive robotics is a broad class of robots whose function is to provide
assistance to the user ,ranging from getting out of the bed, brushing teeth ,locomotion ,and
rehabilitation. MEDICAL ROBOTICS is designed for use in a wide variety of settings
including hospitals, Wada et al. describes the design of Paro, a robot for pet-therapy
applications for nursing homes that do not allow pets. Pet therapy has-been shown to have a
positive effect on the elderly in nursing-home settings, but there are logistical challenges to
having animals in nursing homes. Paro was built to resemble a baby harp seal and designed to
interact like a pet with simple sounds and movements made in response to being held and
petted. Experimental results suggest that Paro may be effective for reducing stress in nursing-
home residents. In addition, when placed in common areas of nursing homes, it produced
increased social activity among residents. This suggests that MEDICAL ROBOTICS systems
may be useful not just for their direct therapeutic applications but more generally as catalysts
for social interaction. Another MEDICAL ROBOTICS system is Rob all , a self-propelling
robotic ball that can sense its position and motion and thus the way it is being played with.

Persons Affected by MEDICAL ROBOTICS

MEDICAL ROBOTICS is designed for use in a wide variety of settings including hospitals,
schools, elder-care facilities, and private homes. The intended end users of such systems are
individuals with special needs, but MEDICAL ROBOTICS systems must operate in real
world environments that may also include family, caregivers, and medical personnel.
Consequently, the effects of MEDICAL ROBOTICS must be assessed for all of the
individuals affected by the technology.

Core Ethical Principles

There are many ways to approach potential ethical issues related to technology in general,
and MEDICAL ROBOTICS in particular. Several appraisals of specific MEDICAL
ROBOTICS systems have been implemented and some have discussed the ethical dilemmas
that a particular system poses. Studies have also aimed to establish ethical benchmarks
related to the design, manufacture, or use of MEDICAL ROBOTICS. Finally, some
appraisals have applied the core ethical principles to identify potential problems. In this work,
we apply an established medical ethics framework to identify potential issues related to
MEDICAL ROBOTICS. This framework uses the following core principles for considering
ethical issues: beneficence: caregivers should act in the best interest of the patient non-
malfeasance: the doctrine, “first, do no harm,” followed by the caregivers to avoid harming
patients autonomy: the capacity to make an informed, un coerced decision about care justice:
fair distribution of scarce health resources.

Beneficence and Non-malfeasance

The principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance state that caregivers should act in the best
interests of the patient and should do nothing rather than take any action that may harm a
patient. These principles establish that the potential benefits of an ethical treatment should
exceed the risks. MEDICAL ROBOTICS, like any technology, features some risks along
with the compelling potential benefits. As noted earlier, MEDICAL ROBOTICS technologies
are typically non contact, so physical risk, while usually the most obvious ethical concern,
and are not a major issue of concern. MEDICAL ROBOTICS systems are designed so the
robot does not apply any forces on the user. On the other hand, the user can touch the
MEDICAL ROBOTICS system, and in some cases (as with Paro, see earlier), such contact is
part of the therapy. However, in a majority of systems no physical contact is involved, and
the robot may not even be within reach of the user, though it is typically within the social
interactive space conducive to one-on-one interaction through speech, gesture, and body
movement. In this section, we examine some of the aspects of MEDICAL ROBOTICS
technologies that are unique and ways in which MEDICAL ROBOTICS systems, in
particular, might impact not only the user directly but also others in the shared context. In
particular, the most prominent nonphysical risks posed by MEDICAL ROBOTICS systems
include, but are not limited to, attachment to the robot, deception

Perception and Personification of the Robot

As discussed earlier, one goal of an effective MEDICAL ROBOTICS system is to establish a
relationship with the user that leads toward intended therapeutic goals. However, since the
user cannot be fully informed about the limitations of the robot, the following issue arises: Is
there deception inherent in the personification of a robot by a user or a caregiver? Such
personification could be unintentional, arising from the caregiver referring to the robot as him
or her, ascribing feelings to the robot, and assigning the robot greater intelligence than it may
have. Studies have shown that people quickly form mental models of robots they are
presented with, much as they do of people. Those models are often incorrect as they are based
on what people know best: other people. The designers of the robot may purposefully
manipulate the perceptions of the user toward therapeutic goals or may not intend to do so at
all; in any case, if such perceptions are incorrect, the user is deceived.

Changes to Human–Human Interaction

The work of Wada et al. demonstrates that MEDICAL ROBOTICS systems can result in
increased amounts of human–human interaction. However, a robot could just as easily be an
isolating factor. Most current examples of MEDICAL ROBOTICS usea robot as an
enhancement of the roles of current caregivers, not as their replacement, and as an addition to
existing therapy, not its substitute. However, if the robot is used as a replacement or
substitute for human care, then the robot might serve to reduce the amount of human–human
contact. This is especially a concern if the robot is the only therapeutic influence in a user’s
life. For populations that are known to suffer from isolation, including the elderly or children
with developmental disorders, robots might facilitate further isolation even while delivering a
therapeutic benefit. We have argued that such use of technology as proxies for human
attention is a real risk but not one that is new or specific to robotics. Television watching and
playing computer games are both poor substitutes for attentive parenting but neither the TV
nor the games can be blamed. Similarly, ethical and productive use of MEDICAL
ROBOTICS technologies will neces Medical roboticsily put the burden on the caregivers to
not abuse the technology.

Conclusion

Our research and results to date into socially assistive robotics show the
promises of this new research area and extend the horizons of the field of
robotics. Our on-going research is aimed at addressing and solving the above
mentioned issues related to embodiment, social behaviors, and empathy, at
developing effective embodied assistive systems, and at extending our
understanding of human social behavior towards assistive applications.
This seminar defines the research area of socially assistive
robotics, focused on assisting people through social interaction. While much
attention has been paid to robots that provide assistance to people through
physical contact (which we call contact assistive robotics), and to robots that
entertain through social interaction (social interactive robotics), so far there is
no clear definition of socially assistive robotics. We summarize active social
assistive research projects and classify them by target populations, application
domains, and interaction methods. While distinguishing these from socially
interactive robotics endeavour’s, we discuss challenges and opportunities that
are specific to the growing field of socially assistive robotics