(12) United States Patent
`US 7,524,320 B2
`(10) Patent N0.:
`
`Tierney et al. *Apr. 28, 2009 (45) Date of Patent:
`
`
`US007524320B2
`
`MECHANICAL ACTUATOR INTERFACE
`SYSTEM FOR ROBOTIC SURGICAL TOOLS
`
`(56)
`
`(54)
`
`(75)
`
`Inventors: Michael J. Tierney, Pleasanton, CA
`(US); Thomas G. Cooper, Menlo Park,
`CA (US); Chris A. Julian, Los Gatos,
`CA (US); Stephen J. Blumenkranz,
`Redwood City, CA (US); Gary S.
`Guthart, Foster City, CA (US); Robert
`G. Younge, Portola Valley, CA (US)
`
`(73)
`
`Assignee:
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA
`(US)
`
`(*)
`
`Notice:
`
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.C. 154(b) by 1036 days.
`
`This patent is subject to a terminal dis-
`claimer.
`
`(21)
`
`Appl. N0.: 10/316,666
`
`(22)
`
`Filed:
`
`Dec. 10, 2002
`
`References Cited
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`4,038,987 A
`
`8/1977 Komiya
`
`(Continued)
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`JP
`
`7-194610
`
`8/1995
`
`(Continued)
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`Alexander, Arthur D., 111., “Impacts of Telemanipulation on Modern
`S0ciety,”Internati0nal Centrefor Mechanical Sciences, Courses and
`Lectures N0. 201, vol. II, pp. 122-136 (Sep. 5-8, 1973).
`
`(Continued)
`
`Primary ExamineriEduardo C Robert
`Assistant Examinerilames L Swiger, III
`
`(57)
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`(65)
`
`(60)
`
`(60)
`
`(51)
`
`(52)
`(58)
`
`Prior Publication Data
`
`US 2003/0083673 A1
`
`May 1, 2003
`
`Related U.S. Application Data
`
`Continuation of application No. 09/929,453, filed on
`Aug. 13, 2001, now Pat. No. 7,048,745, which is a
`division of application No. 09/418,726, filed on Oct.
`15, 1999, now Pat. No. 6,331,181.
`
`Provisional application No. 60/1 1 1,713, filed on Dec.
`8, 1998.
`Int. Cl.
`
`(2006.01)
`A613 19/00
`U.S. Cl.
`........................................... 606/130; 606/1
`Field of Classification Search ..................... 606/ 1,
`606/130; 700/259, 260, 263
`See application file for complete search history.
`
`Robotic surgical tools, systems, and methods for preparing
`for and performing robotic surgery include a memory
`mounted on the tool. The memory can perform a number of
`functions when the tool is loaded on the tool manipulator:
`first, the memory can provide a signal verifying that the tool
`is compatible with that particular robotic system. Secondly,
`the tool memory may identify the tool-type to the robotic
`system so that the robotic system can reconfigure its program-
`ming. Thirdly, the memory of the tool may indicate tool-
`specific information, including measured calibration offsets
`indicating misalignment of the tool drive system, tool life
`data, or the like. This information may be stored in a read only
`memory (ROM), or in a nonvolatile memory which can be
`written to only a single time. The invention further provides
`improved engagement structures for coupling robotic surgi-
`cal tools with manipulator structures.
`
`31 Claims, 22 Drawing Sheets
`
`108 \
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1027
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`|PR2018—01247
`
`Exhibit 1027
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`1
`
`

`

`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`Page 2
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`4,149,278 A
`4,281,447 A
`4332066 A
`4367998 A
`4386933 A
`4,456,960 A
`4,486,928 A
`4,500,065 A
`4,511,305 A
`4,512,709 A
`4,706,372 A
`4,710,093 A
`4,744,363 A
`4,751,925 A
`4,766,775 A
`4,793,053 A
`4,809,747 A
`4,830,569 A
`4,832,198 A
`4,837,703 A
`4928546 A
`4943939 A
`4,979,949 A
`4996975 A
`5,018,266 A
`5,078,140 A
`5,086,401 A
`5,143,453 A
`5,154,717 A
`5,155,693 A
`5,174,300 A
`5,184,601 A
`5,217,003 A
`5,221,283 A
`5,236,432 A
`5,243,266 A
`5,255,429 A
`5,257,998 A
`5,271,384 A
`5,294,209 A
`5,305,203 A
`5,312,212 A
`5,313,935 A
`5,337,732 A
`5,339,799 A
`5,343,385 A
`5,354,314 A
`5,355,743 A
`5,359,993 A
`5,372,147 A
`5397323 A
`553995951 A
`5,400,267 A
`5,402,801 A
`5,403,319 A
`5,417,210 A
`5,427,097 A
`5,451,368 A
`5,520,678 A
`5,617,857 A
`5,624,398 A
`5,630,431 A
`5,631,973 A
`5,649,956 A
`5,690,635 A
`5,695,500 A
`5,695,501 A
`
`4/1979 Wiker et a1.
`8/1981 Miller et a1
`6/1982 Hailey et a1~
`1/1983 Causer
`6/1983 Sanchez
`6/ 1984 Wakai
`12/1984 Tucker et a1.
`2/1985 Hennekes et a1~
`4/1985 Kawai et a1.
`4/1985 Hennekes et a1.
`11/1987 Ferrero et a1.
`12/1987 Zimmer et a1.
`5/1988 Hasson
`6/1988 Tontarra
`8/1988 Hodge
`12/1988 Zuccaro et a1~
`3/ 1989 Choly et a1~
`5/1989 Jannborg
`5/1989 Alikhan
`6/1989 Kakazu et a1
`5/ 1990 Walters
`7/1990 Hoover
`12/1990 Matsen, III et a1.
`3/1991 Nakamura
`5/1991 Hutchinson et a1.
`1/1992 Kwoh
`........... 700/259
`2/1992 Glassman et al.
`9/1992 Weynant née Girones
`10/1992 Matsen, III et a1.
`10/1992 Altmayer et a1
`12/1992 Bales et a1.
`2/ 1993 Putrnan
`6/1993 Wilk
`6/1993 Chang
`8/1993 Matsen,IIIetal.
`9/1993 Kasagamietal.
`10/1993 Nishi et a1.
`11/1993 Ota et a1.
`12/1993 McEwen et a1.
`3/1994 Naka et a1.
`4/1994 Raab
`5/1994 Naumec
`5/1994 Kortenbach et al.
`8/1994 Grundfest et a1.
`8/ 1994 Kami et 31~
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 600/117
`8/ 1994 JOSkOWiCZ et 31~
`10/1994 Hardy et a1.
`10/ 1994 Tesar
`11/ 1994 Slater et 31~
`12/1994 Lathrop, JR et 31~
`3/1995 Taylor
`3/ 1995 Lavallee et 31~
`3/ 1995 Denen 6t 31~
`4/1995 Taylor
`4/ 1995 Matsen, 111 et 31~
`5/ 1995 Funda et 31~
`6/ 1995 Depp
`9/ 1995 JaCOb
`5/1996 Heckele et 31~
`4/1997 Chader et 31~
`4/1997 Smith et a1.
`5/1997 Taylor ........................ 128/897
`5/ 1997 Green
`7/1997 Jensen et 31~
`“/1997 Baumgarten et 31~
`12/1997 Taylor et al.
`12/1997 Carol et al.
`
`........ 318/568.1
`
`12/ 1997 Kubota et a1.
`5,697,939 A
`1/1998 Ohm et a1.
`.................. 700/263
`5,710,870 A *
`6/1998 Wang et a1.
`5,762,458 A
`.................. 700/260
`7/1998 Ohm et a1.
`5,784,542 A *
`8/1998 Madhani et a1.
`5,792,135 A
`8/1998 Madhani et a1.
`5,797,900 A
`9/1998 Jensen
`5,800,423 A
`9/1998 Madhani et a1.
`5,807,377 A
`9/1998 Green
`5,808,665 A
`9/1998 Jensen et a1.
`5,814,038 A
`10/1998 Jensen
`5,817,084 A
`1/1999 Wang et a1.
`5,855,583 A
`3/1999 Mizuno et al.
`5,876,325 A
`3/1999 Wang et a1.
`5,878,193 A
`11/1999 Madhani et a1.
`5,976,122 A
`10/2000 Cooper
`6,132,368 A
`11/2000 Costa
`6,151,981 A
`6/2001 Blumenkranz et a1.
`6,246,200 B1
`7/2001 Green ........................ 382/128
`6,259,806 B1*
`12/2001 Tierney et a1.
`6,331,181 B1
`2/2002 Cooper
`6,346,072 B1
`4/2002 Osadchy et a1.
`6,370,411 B1
`.............. 600/229
`6/2002 Ramans et a1.
`6,398,726 B1*
`7/2002 Niemeyer et a1.
`6,424,885 B1
`8/2002 Clayton et al.
`6,434,507 B1
`6,468,265 B1* 10/2002 Evans et a1. .................... 606/1
`6,491,701 132
`12/2002 Tierney et a1.
`6,554,844 B2*
`4/2003 Lee et a1.
`.................... 606/130
`6,699,177 131
`3/2004 Wang et 31.
`6,738,656 B1
`5/2004 Ferre et al.
`6,866,671 132
`3/2005 Tierney et 31.
`2002/0032452 A1
`3/2002 Tierney et a1.
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`W0
`W0
`W0
`W0
`W0
`W0
`W0
`W0
`W0
`
`WO 93/13916
`WO 94/26167
`WO 95/16396
`WO 95/30964
`WO 9639944
`W0 97/29710
`WO 98/256“
`WO 99/50721
`WO 0033755
`
`7/1993
`1“ 1994
`“995
`1“ 1995
`”/1996
`8/1997
`“998
`10/1999
`”000
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`Madhani et al., “The black falconzAteleoperated surgical instrument
`for minimally invasive surgery” (submitted to IROS 1998) 9 pages
`total.
`Moyer, T.H., Thesis entitled “The design of an integrated hand and
`wrist mechanism” for Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
`at the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (1992) pp. 1-106.
`Neisius et al., “Robotic manipulator for endoscopic handling of sur-
`gical effectors and cameras” Proceedings of the First International
`Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery,
`vol. 2, Workshop (Part1 & II)- Session v1, pp. 169-175.
`Salisbury, J.K., “Kinematic and force analysis of articulated hands”
`Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Report No.
`STAN-CS-82-921 (1982) Chapter 9, pp. 67-77.
`Thring, “Robots and telechirs: Manipulators with memory; remote
`manipulators; machine limbs for the handicapped” (1993) M.W.
`Thring/Ellis Horwood Ltd. pp. 9-11, 122-131, 194-195, 235-257,
`274.279.
`“Task 2; Miniature end effectoriA preliminary design” pp, 32—47,
`Vertut, Jean and Coeffet, Philippe Coiffet; “Robot Technology; vol.
`3A Teleoperation and Robotics Evolution and Development”; 1986;
`Prentice-Hall, Inc; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
`
`* cited by examiner
`
`2
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 1 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`I50
`
`/|0
`
`I
`
`50
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`[-762 2/1.
`
`5
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 4 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 5 of 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 6 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 7 of 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 8 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`FIG!4B.
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 9 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 10 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 11 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 12 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 13 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 14 of 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`ELBOR POE
`,sm @Ess R-EDBT +
`
`
`-sn;> W-IRLRERO _ HALF BRIDGE
`
`RH, mini-mm
`
`SHIELD
`'WI
`
`
`
`
`
`FORCE SENSOR.“
`
`BLU E40 +
`mg, m E33
`$13, MET-IELEOL _ HALF BRIDGE
`ESI WHT E42
`
`SHIELD
`
`“2
`
`I47
`
`REED/
`swchR
`
`I44
`
`FORCE SENSOR.”
`CARRIAGE PCB
`|24
`[42
`NO was .52.
`DALLAS
`.0
`-STERILE> %M-%%WE25 M m .
`9"” ITzI-Rm'' "EZA 23 -_-GND
`SHIELD> V erm. sa-
`
`
`4;; 43
`I
`DALLAS CHIP
`D
`5A 53
`#m mum -L:T:'.LRRTLTm=I
`(STERILEADAPTDR)
`'
`[23
`> WWII-H55]
`STERILEADAPT-
`6“”
`'JEIl-EiliEJ-
`
`IE
`SHIELD>
`I
`-E29 0R PINS
`
`TOOL-EXPIRED)SEE 5%!
`(TOOL)
`
`ROLUNG LOOP
`
`DALLAS CHIP
`
`TOOL-EXPIRED)
`
`LOOP BA
`
`
`RED
`TOOL-CHAN-$0 >
`
`[mm-2:!
`TOOLORAN-GRO-5ER5E>
`TOOL-ORANGE-5mm mm-
`GND>BLK mini-33”
`
`E45
`
`TOOL CHANGE SWIT DH
`
`RED E26
`
`E47
`
`SLAVE CLUTGHING SWITCH
`
`FIG 8.
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 15 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Apr. 28
`
`9
`
`2009
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`EmmmNr
`
`om
`
`mm?
`
`Hmzo<2
`
`mmm?:1Es$3.292.35z.1855
`69z<m
`
`.ommm
`
`.o.GE
`
`9:
`
`Jock/EHaHmagma/B
`
`I
`
`<_m
`
`Em
`
`<_m
`
`m_wm<IU
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 17 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`MIDDLEMAN (CTP)
`
`
`SUPERVISOR (UMC)
`EXECUTES
`
`
`CONTRCFDthk/OG'CAL
`INSTRUCTIONS FROM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPERVISOR
`
`
`
`PROCEDURE
` KERNEL (CTP AND CES)
`MANAGEMENT/DATA
`
`
`
`HANDLER (MDC)
`
`
`
`LOCAL TOOL
`
`
`
`DETECTION (RIA)
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 10.
`
`19
`
`19
`
`

`

`H
`
`
`REED
`SWITCH
`
`REED
`SWITCH
`
`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 18 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`SEQUENCE FLOW
`
`DETAILED SEQUENCE
`BLOCKS
`
`147
`
`
`
`LOSED*
`
`OPEN
`
`— SIGNIFIES MESSAGE SENT @
`HARDWARE STATE ®
`
`TO INDICATE CHANGE IN
`
`CHECK
`
`FOR
`TOOL
`
`
`
`TOOL DALLAS
`
`TOOL DALLAS
`
`PRESET’ @NOTPRESENT‘
`
`FIG. 11.
`
`20
`
`20
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 19 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`POWER ON
`
`INITIALIZATION
`
` TOOL IS
`BEING INSERTED
`
`(S4)
`
`
`
`
`
` TOOL IS
`
`Initialization
`
`complete
`
`
`
`OUT (52)
`
`
`Sterile ad .. oter engaged
`
`
`Sadapter D chip
`
`
`
`
`ADAPTER
`
`STERILE
`
`OFF (S1 )
`
`111
`
`D = Dallas chip ( 1 = present, 0 = not present)
`E = End of use indicator (0 = Open, 1 = Shorted)
`R = Reed Switch ( 0= open, 1 = shorted)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Events occur in DER order
`
`6.9. 101 means Dallas chip present, End of use
`indicator is open, Reed switch is closed)
`
`A=110,100,010,110,101,111
`
`B=011,101,001
`C=001,010,011,100,101,110,111
`FIG. 12.
`
`
`Logging occurs if the situation
`
`persists for more than 1 second
`
`
`
`21
`
`21
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 20 0f 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`TOOL
`
`CHANGE
`
`CHK 2
`
`CHANGE
`
`DONE
`
`TOOL
`FOLLOW
`CHK1
`
`TOOL
`
`FOLLOW
`
`CAM
`CHANGE
`DONE
`
`22
`
`22
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 21 of 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 28, 2009
`
`Sheet 22 of 22
`
`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`166
`
`ALGORITHM
`
`162
`
`
`
`1
`
`64
`
`TOOL PRODUCTION
`
`TOOL COMPATIBILITY VERIFICATION
`
`166
`
`ALGORITHM
`
`
`
`170
`
`TOOL
`
`PROCESSOR
`
`FIG. 15.
`
`24
`
`24
`
`

`

`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`1
`MECHANICAL ACTUATOR INTERFACE
`SYSTEM FOR ROBOTIC SURGICAL TOOLS
`
`CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED
`APPLICATIONS
`
`The present application is a continuation of US. patent
`application Ser. No. 09/929,453 filed onAug. 13, 2001, and is
`a divisional application of US. patent application Ser. No.
`09/759,542 filed Jan. 12, 2001, now US. Pat. No. 6,491,701,
`which is a continuation application of US. patent application
`Ser. No. 09/418,726 filed Dec. 6, 1999, and in turn also claims
`priority to US. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/111,
`713 filed on Dec. 8, 1998; US. patent application Ser. No.
`09/398,958 filed Sep. 17, 1999, now US. Pat. No. 6,394,998;
`and US. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/1 16,844 filed
`on Jan. 2, 1999, entitled “Surgical Tools For Use In Mini-
`mally Invasive Telesurgical Applications”. The entirety ofthe
`above-referenced applications is herein incorporated by ref-
`erence.
`
`This application also incorporates by references the fol-
`lowing U.S. Design patent application Ser. Nos. 29/097,544
`filed on Dec. 8, 1998, entitled “Portion OfAn Interface ForA
`Medical Instrument”; 29/097,552 filed on Dec. 8, 1998,
`entitled “Interface For A Medical Instrument”; 29/097,550
`filed on Dec. 8, 1998, entitled “Portion OfAn Adaptor ForA
`Medical Instrument”; and 29/097,551 filed on Dec. 8, 1998,
`entitled “Adaptor For A Medical Instrument”.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`This invention relates to robotically assisted surgery, and
`more particularly provides surgical tools having improved
`mechanical and/or data interface capabilities to enhance the
`safety, accuracy, and speed of minimally invasive and other
`robotically enhanced surgical procedures.
`In robotically assisted surgery, the surgeon typically oper-
`ates a master controller to remotely control the motion of
`surgical instruments at the surgical site. The controller may be
`separated from the patient by a significant distance (e.g.,
`across the operating room, in a different room, or in a com-
`pletely different building than the patient). Alternatively, a
`controller may be positioned quite near the patient in the
`operating room. Regardless,
`the controller will typically
`include one or more hand input devices (such as joysticks,
`exoskeletol gloves, master manipulators, or the like) which
`are coupled by a servo mechanism to the surgical instrument.
`More specifically, servo motors move a manipulator or
`“slave” supporting the surgical instrument based on the sur-
`geon’s manipulation of the hand input devices. During an
`operation, the surgeon may employ, via the robotic surgery
`system, a variety of surgical instruments such as tissue grasp-
`ers, needle drivers, electrosurgical cautery probes, etc. Each
`of these structures performs functions for the surgeon, for
`example, holding or driving a needle, grasping a blood vessel,
`or dissecting, cauterizing, or coagulating tissue.
`This new method of performing robotic surgery has, of
`course, created many new challenges. One such challenge is
`that a surgeon will typically employ a significant number of
`different surgical instruments during each surgical procedure.
`The number of independent surgical manipulators will often
`be limited due to space constraints and cost. Additionally,
`patient trauma can generally be reduced by eliminating the
`number of tools used at any given time. More specifically, in
`minimally invasive procedures, the number ofentry ports into
`a patient is generally limited because of space constraints, as
`well as a desire to avoid unnecessary incisions in the patient.
`
`2
`
`Hence, a number of different surgical instruments will typi-
`cally be introduced through the same trocar sleeve into the
`abdomen during,
`for example,
`laparoscopic procedures.
`Likewise, in open surgery, there is typically not enough room
`adjacent the surgical site to position more than a few surgical
`manipulators, particularly where each manipulator/tool com-
`bination has a relatively large range of motion. As a result, a
`number of surgical instruments will often be attached and
`detached from a single instrument holder of a manipulator
`during an operation.
`Published PCT application WO98/25666, filed on Dec. 10,
`1997 and assigned to the present assignee (the full disclosure
`of which is incorporated herein by reference) describes a
`Multicomponent Telepresence System and Method which
`significantly improves the safety and speed with which
`robotic surgical tools can be removed and replaced during a
`surgical procedure. While this represents a significant
`advancement of the art, as is often true, still further improve-
`ments would be desirable. In particular, each tool change
`which occurs during a surgical procedure increases the over-
`all surgery time. While still further improvements in the
`mechanical tool/manipulator interface may help reduce a por-
`tion of this tool change time, work in connection with the
`present invention has shown that the mechanical removal and
`replacement of the tool may represent only one portion ofthe
`total interruption for a tool change. US. Pat. No. 5,400,267
`describes a memory feature for electrically powered medical
`equipment, and is also incorporated herein by reference.
`As more and more different surgical tools are provided for
`use with a robotic system, the differences between the tool
`structures (and the interaction between the tool and the other
`components of the robotic system) become more pro-
`nounced. Many of these surgical tools will have one or more
`degrees of motion between the surgical end effectors and the
`proximal interface which engages the tool to the holder ofthe
`manipulator. The desired and/or practicable ranges ofmotion
`for an electrosurgical scalpel may be significantly different
`than those of a clip applier, for example. Work in connection
`with the present invention has found that even after a tool is
`properly placed on the surgical manipulator,
`the time
`involved in reconfiguring the robotic system to take advan-
`tage of a different tool, and to perfect the master controller’s
`effective control over the degrees of motion of the tool, may
`add significantly to the total tool change delay.
`In light of the above, it would be desirable to provide
`improved robotic surgery tools, systems, and method. It
`would further be desirable to provide techniques for reducing
`the total delay associated with each tool change. It would be
`especially desirable if these enhanced, and often more rapid,
`robotic tool change techniques resulted in still
`further
`improvement in the safety and reliability of these promising
`surgical systems.
`
`BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`
`The present invention generally provides improved robotic
`surgical devices, systems, and methods for preparing for and
`performing robotic surgery. The robotic tools of the present
`invention will often make use of a memory structure mounted
`on a tool, manipulator arm, or movable support structure. The
`memory can, for example, perform a number of important
`functions when a tool is loaded on the tool manipulator: first,
`the memory can provide a signal verifying that the tool is
`compatible with that particular robotic system. Secondly, the
`tool memory may identify the tool-type (whether it is a scal-
`pel, needle grasper, jaws, scissors, clip applier, electrocautery
`blade, or the like) to the robotic system so that the robotic
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`25
`
`25
`
`

`

`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`3
`system can reconfigure its programming to take full advan-
`tage of the tools’ specialized capabilities. This tool-type data
`may simply be an identification signal referencing further
`data in a look-up table ofthe robotic system. Alternatively, the
`tool-type signal provided by the tool may define the tool
`characteristics in sufficient detail to allow reconfiguration of
`the robotic programming without having to resort to an exter-
`nal table. Thirdly, the memory of the tool may indicate tool-
`specific information, including (for example) measured cali-
`bration offsets indicating misalignment between the tool
`drive system and the tool end effector elements, tool life data
`(such as the number of times the tool has been loaded onto a
`surgical system,
`the number of surgical procedures per-
`formed with the tool, and/or the total time the tools has been
`used), or the like. The information may be stored in some
`form of non-volatile memory such as one-time program-
`mable EPROM, Flash EPROM, EEPROM, battery-backed-
`up SRAM, or similar memory technology where data can be
`updated and retained in either a serial or random access
`method, or with any of a wide variety of alternative hardware,
`firmware, or software. The invention further provides
`improved engagement structures for coupling robotic surgi-
`cal tools with manipulator structures.
`In a first aspect, the invention provides a robotic surgical
`tool for use in a robotic surgical system. The robotic surgical
`system has a processor which directs movement of a tool
`holder. The tool comprises a probe having a proximal end and
`a distal end. A surgical end effector is disposed adjacent the
`distal end ofthe probe. An interface is disposed adjacent to the
`proximal end of the probe. The interface can be releasably
`coupled with the tool holder. Circuitry is mounted on the
`probe. The circuitry defines a signal for transmitting to the
`processor so as to indicate compatibility of the tool with the
`system.
`The tool will often comprise a surgical instrument suitable
`for manipulating tissue, an endoscope or other image capture
`device, or the like. Preferably, the signal will comprise unique
`tool identifier data. The processor of the robotic surgical
`system may include programming to manipulate the tool
`identifier according to a pre-determined function or algorithm
`so as to derive verification data. The signal transmitted to the
`processor will often include the verification data. Alternative
`compatibility signals may include a signal which is listed in a
`table accessible to the processor, an arbitrary compatibility
`data string, or the like.
`In another aspect, the invention provides a robotic surgical
`component for use in a robotic surgical system having a
`processor and a component holder. The component comprises
`a component body having an interface mountable to the com-
`ponent holder. The body supports a surgical end effector, and
`a drive system is coupled to the body for moving the end
`effector per commands from the processor. Circuitry is
`mounted on the body and defines a signal for transmitting to
`the processor. The signal may indicate compatibility of the
`component with the system, may define a component type of
`the component, may indicate coupling of the component to
`the system, and/or may indicate calibration ofthe component.
`Typically, the component will comprise a surgical tool, a
`manipulator arm, a pre-positioning linkage supporting the
`manipulator arm, or the like.
`In another aspect, the invention provides a method for
`installing a robotic surgical component in a robotic surgical
`system. The method comprises mounting the component to a
`component holder. A signal is transmitted from the compo-
`nent to a processor of the robotic surgical system. The com-
`ponent is articulated in response to the signal per commands
`of the processor.
`
`4
`
`In many embodiments, compatibility of the component
`with the robotic surgical system will be verified using the
`signal transmitted from the component to the processor. This
`can be accomplished by providing unique identification data
`on the component, and deriving verification data from the
`identification data according to an algorithm. The verification
`data is stored with a memory of the component, the signal
`transmitted to the processor including both the identification
`and verification data. The algorithm may then be performed
`on the transmitted unique identification data with the proces-
`sor, and the results compared with the verification data.
`Advantageously, this method can take advantage of unique
`identification data which is often unalterably stored in a
`memory of commercially available integrated circuits.
`In another aspect, the invention provides a robotic surgical
`tool for use in robotic surgical systems having a processor.
`The tool comprises a shaft having a proximal end and a distal
`end. A surgical end effector is disposed adjacent the distal end
`of the shaft. The end effector has a plurality of degrees of
`motion relative to the proximal end. An interface is disposed
`adjacent the proximal end of the shaft. The interface can be
`releasably coupled with a robotic probe holder. The interface
`comprises a plurality of driven elements. A plurality of tool
`drive systems couple the driven elements to the degrees of
`motion of the end effector. The tool drive system has calibra-
`tion offsets between a nominal relative position of the end
`effector and the driven elements, and a measured relative
`position of the end effector and driven elements. A memory
`stores data indicating the offsets. The memory is coupled to
`the interface so as to transmit the offsets to the processor.
`In yet another aspect, the invention provides a robotic
`surgical system comprising a plurality of tools of different
`tool-types. Each tool comprises an elongate shaft with a
`cross-section suitable for introduction into an internal surgi-
`cal site within a patient body via a minimally invasive open-
`ing. A distal surgical end effector is coupled to the shaft by at
`least one joint. The joint is drivingly coupled to a proximal
`interface by a tool drive system. Circuitry ofthe tool transmits
`a tool-type via the interface. The tool types may optionally
`differ in at least one characteristic such as joint geometry, end
`effector geometry, drive system characteristics, end effector
`or drive system strength, or the like. The system also includes
`a robotic manipulator including a linkage supporting a tool
`holder. The tool holder releasably receives the interface. A
`manipulator drive motor drivingly engages the linkage so as
`to move the tool holder relative to the opening and position
`the shaft within the surgical site. A tool drive motor is coupled
`to the tool holder so as to drivingly engage the tool drive
`system and articulate the joint. A processor is coupled to the
`tool holder. The processor has programming that effects a
`desired movement of the end effector by transmitting drive
`signals to the tool drive motors of the manipulator. The pro-
`cessor reconfigures the program for the different joint geom-
`etries based on the tool-type signals.
`In another aspect, the invention provides a robotic surgical
`system comprising a surgical tool having a surgical end effec-
`tor and an interface. A manipulator assembly has a base and a
`tool holder for releasably engaging the interface. A plurality
`of tool engagement sensors are coupled to the tool holder.
`Each tool sensor produces a signal when the interface engages
`the holder. A processor is coupled to the tool engagement
`sensors. The processor has a tool change mode and a tissue
`manipulation mode. The processor requires tool signals from
`each of the sensors before changing the tool change mode to
`the tissue manipulation mode. The processor remains in the
`tissue manipulation mode when at least one, but not all, ofthe
`tool signals is lost.
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`26
`
`26
`
`

`

`US 7,524,320 B2
`
`5
`The tools used in robotic surgery will be subjected to
`significant structural stress during use. The stress may result
`in temporary loss of an engagement signal from an engage-
`ment sensor. By providing at least two, and preferably three
`engagement sensors, the surgical procedure can continue
`safely with the loss of an engagement signal from an indi-
`vidual sensor so long as the system can still verify proper
`engagement between the manipulator and tool. This arrange-
`ment results in a robust tool engagement sensing system that
`avoids frequent delays during the surgical procedure as might
`occur from the loss of an individual signal.
`In yet another aspect, the invention provides a robotic
`surgical system comprising a manipulator assembly having a
`base and tool holder which moves relative to the base. The
`
`tool holder has a plurality of drive elements. A sterile drape
`covers at least a portion of the manipulator. A sterile tool has
`a proximal interface and distal end effector. The distal end
`effector has a plurality of degrees of motion relative to the
`proximal interface. The degrees of motion are coupled to
`drive elements of the interface. An adapter is disposed adja-
`cent the sterile drape between the holder and the interface.
`The adapter comprises a plurality of movable bodies. Each
`movable body has a first surface driven by the drive elements
`of the holder, and a second surface driving the driven ele-
`ments of the tool.
`
`In yet another aspect, the invention provides a robotic
`surgical tool for use with a robotic manipulator having a tool
`holder. The tool holder has magnetically actuatable circuitry.
`The tool comprises a probe having a proximal end and a distal
`end. A surgical end effector is disposed adjacent the distal end
`of the probe. An interface adjacent the proximal end of the
`probe is releasably coupleable with the holder. The interface
`comprises a magnet positioned so as to actuate the circuitry of
`the holder.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates a robotic surgical procedure in which a
`surgeon at a master station directs movement of robotic sur-
`gical tools effected by a slave manipulator, and shows an
`assistant preparing to change a tool mounted to a tool holder
`of the slave.
`
`FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a robotic surgical arm cart
`system in which a series of passive set-up joints support
`robotically actuated manipulators (typically, the center arm
`would support a camera).
`FIG. 2A is a perspective view of a robotic surgical manipu-
`lator for use in the cart system of FIG. 2.
`FIGS. 2B and C are side and front views, respectively, of
`the linkage ofthe robotic manipulator ofFIG. 2, showing how
`the manipulator maintains a remote center of rotation along a
`shaft of the surgical tool.
`FIGS. 3 and 3A are perspective views of exemplary cart
`structures with positioning linkages which support
`the
`robotic manipulators in the system of FIG. 2.
`FIG. 4 is a perspective view of an exemplary tool according
`to the principles of the present invention.
`FIGS. 4A and B are schematic views of alternative drive
`
`systems for the tool of FIG. 4.
`FIGS. 5A through H are illustrations ofa variety of surgical
`end effectors of differing tool-types.
`FIG. 6 illustrates the mechanical and electrical interface of
`the tool of FIG. 4.
`
`FIGS. 7A through E illustrate an adapter for coupling the
`interface of FIG. 6 to the surgical manipulator.
`FIGS. 7G through I illustrate the adapter of FIGS. 7A
`through E mounted to a holder or carriage ofthe manipulator.
`
`6
`FIGS. 7] through L illustrate the holder, its driving ele-
`ments, and its electrical contacts.
`FIG. 8 is a wiring diagram for the tool of FIG. 4, the adapter
`of FIG. 7A-E, and related components of the robotic system.
`FIGS. 8A and B are rear and front views of the master
`
`console, respectively.
`FIG. 9 is a functional block diagram schematically illus-
`trating the signal path hardware of the tool change system.
`FIG. 10 is a schematic diagram illustrating the interaction
`between the software modules related to tool change.
`FIG. 11 is a logic flow chart illustrating an exemplary
`method for sensing engagement of a tool with the manipula-
`tor.
`
`FIG. 12 is a flow diagram illustrating how the tool engage-
`ment signals are used to change the operating state of the
`robotic system.
`FIG. 13 illustrates the tool engagement method steps im-
`tiated by the processor in response to a change in operating
`state during tool changes.
`FIGS. 14A through C illustrate mounting of the adapter of
`FIGS. 7A through E to a manipulator arm, and of mounting
`the tool of FIG. 4 onto the adapter.
`FIG. 15 schematically illustrates an exemplary tool com-
`patibility verification algorithm according to the principles of
`the present invention.
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
`
`The present invention provides robotic surgery systems,
`devices, and methods. Robotic surgery will generally involve
`the use of multiple robotic arms. One or more of the robotic
`arms will often support a surgical tool which may be articu-
`lated (such as jaws, scissors, graspers, needle holders, micro-
`dissectors, staple appliers, tackers, suction/irrigation tools,
`clip appliers, or the like) or non-articulated (such as cutting
`blades, cautery probes, irrigators, catheters, suction orifices,
`or the like). One or more ofthe robotic arms will often be used
`to support one or more surgical image capture devices such as
`an endoscope (which may be any of the variety of structures
`such as a laparoscope, an arthroscope, a hysteroscope, or the
`like), or optionally, some other imaging modality (such as
`ultrasound, fluoroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, or the
`like). Typically, the robotic arms will support at least two
`surgical tools corresponding to the two hands of a surgeon and
`one optical image capture device.
`The present invention will find application in a variety of
`s