2016
DOI: 10.1007/s12024-016-9798-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic entry point planning for robotic post-mortem CT-based needle placement

Abstract: In most cases, the algorithm is sufficiently fast with approximately 5-6 s per entry point. This is the case if there is no collision between the end-effector and the body. If the end-effector has to be rotated to avoid collision, calculation times can increase up to 24 s due to the inefficient collision detection used here. In conclusion, the algorithm allows for fast and facilitated trajectory planning in forensic imaging.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
1
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In our evaluation study, the execution time did not prohibit efficient biopsy sampling, especially if heat maps were calculated in the background while the robot still executed the previous needle insertion. Excluding the feasibility evaluation, our mean 4.81±1.56 s runtime is less than the 9.5 s seconds reported by Ebert et al [29] without robot feasibility evaluation. Furthermore, runtime of the system never exceeded 10 s during our evaluation compared to up to 25 s which the system of Ebert et al could need if insertions were not possible with one orientation.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In our evaluation study, the execution time did not prohibit efficient biopsy sampling, especially if heat maps were calculated in the background while the robot still executed the previous needle insertion. Excluding the feasibility evaluation, our mean 4.81±1.56 s runtime is less than the 9.5 s seconds reported by Ebert et al [29] without robot feasibility evaluation. Furthermore, runtime of the system never exceeded 10 s during our evaluation compared to up to 25 s which the system of Ebert et al could need if insertions were not possible with one orientation.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 68%
“…In our evaluation needle collision could not be avoided in 2.0 % of insertions. Note that, our system could be extended for collision detection and insertion order planning similar to Ebert et al [29]. However, in a real-world clinical workflow, the needles do not need to remain inside the corpse but can be removed after each biopsy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%