ReviewFrontiers in robotics and AI2021
Shape Reconstruction Processes for Interventional Application Devices: State of the Art, Progress, and Future Directions.
Review in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural Network-Based Shape Analysis and Control of Continuum Objects.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Design and Experimental Validation of a 3D-Printed Embedded-Sensing Continuum Robot for Neurosurgery.Micromachines · 2023Article
- End-Point Position Estimation of a Soft Continuum Manipulator Using Embedded Linear Magnetic Encoders.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soft and continuum robots are transforming medical interventions thanks to their flexibility, miniaturization, and multidirectional movement abilities. Although flexibility enables reaching targets in unstructured and dynamic environments, it also creates challenges for control, especially due to interactions with the anatomy. Thus, in recent years lots of efforts have been devoted for the development of shape reconstruction methods, with the advancement of different kinematic models, sensors, and imaging techniques. These methods can increase the performance of the control action as well as provide the tip position of robotic manipulators relative to the anatomy. Each method, however, has its advantages and disadvantages and can be worthwhile in different situations. For example, electromagnetic (EM) and Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensor-based shape reconstruction methods can be used in small-scale robots due to their advantages thanks to miniaturization, fast response, and high sensitivity. Yet, the problem of electromagnetic interference in the case of EM sensors, and poor response to high strains in the case of FBG sensors need to be considered. To help the reader make a suitable choice, this paper presents a review of recent progress on shape reconstruction methods, based on a systematic literature search, excluding pure kinematic models. Methods are classified into two categories. First, sensor-based techniques are presented that discuss the use of various sensors such as FBG, EM, and passive stretchable sensors for reconstructing the shape of the robots. Second, imaging-based methods are discussed that utilize images from different imaging systems such as fluoroscopy, endoscopy cameras, and ultrasound for the shape reconstruction process. The applicability, benefits, and limitations of each method are discussed. Finally, the paper draws some future promising directions for the enhancement of the shape reconstruction methods by discussing open questions and alternative methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.