Abstract

Tendon-driven robots, where one or more tendons under tension bend and manipulate a flexible backbone, can improve minimally invasive surgeries involving difficult-to-reach regions in the human body. Planning motions safely within constrained anatomical environments requires accuracy and efficiency in shape estimation and collision checking. Tendon robots that employ arbitrarily-routed tendons can achieve complex and interesting shapes, enabling them to travel to difficult-to-reach anatomical regions. Arbitrarily-routed tendon-driven robots have unintuitive nonlinear kinematics. Therefore, we envision clinicians leveraging an assistive interactive-rate motion planner to automatically generate collision-free trajectories to clinician-specified destinations during minimally-invasive surgical procedures. Standard motion-planning techniques cannot achieve interactive-rate motion planning with the current expensive tendon robot kinematic models. In this work, we present a 3-phase motion-planning system for arbitrarily-routed tendon-driven robots with a Precompute phase, a Load phase, and a Supervisory Control phase. Our system achieves an interactive rate by developing a fast kinematic model (over 1,000 times faster than current models), a fast voxel collision method (27.6 times faster than standard methods), and leveraging a precomputed roadmap of the entire robot workspace with pre-voxelized vertices and edges. In simulated experiments, we show that our motion-planning method achieves high tip-position accuracy and generates plans at 14.8 Hz on average in a segmented collapsed lung pleural space anatomical environment. Our results show that our method is 17,700 times faster than popular off-the-shelf motion planning algorithms with standard FK and collision detection approaches. Our open-source code is available online.

Method Overview

Experiments

In the paper, we separately evaluate each contribution in simulation

1. FK model: ours vs. existing model on speed and model accuracy

2. Voxel collision checker vs. FCL mesh checker on speed

3. Dynamic motion discretizer on number of FK calls per evaluated edge

4. 3-phase motion planner vs. RRT, RRTConnect, LazyPRM, and PRM algorithms

   • Competing planners use our FK, voxel library, and dynamic motion discretizer

We then evaluate all of our contributions together against competing planners using the existing FK model, FCL mesh checker, and equally spaced motion discretizer.

Finally, we perform an ablation study.

Results Summary