Manual, Joystick, or Haptic Control? An In Vitro Comparison of Navigation Strategies for Robotic Interventional Neuroradiology Procedures

2026-07-08

AI Summary

This study systematically evaluates the safety and operational performance of manual, joystick, and master-slave teleoperated control strategies—with and without haptic feedback—in robot-assisted neurointerventional procedures. Leveraging a custom endovascular robotic system, a force-sensing neurovascular phantom, and multimodal control interfaces, the research incorporates human factors analysis with clinical experts to provide the first comparative assessment of these control paradigms in neurointervention. Results demonstrate that manual control achieves the fastest task completion, while all modalities maintain procedural safety. The master-slave controller outperforms the joystick in terms of usability and precision. Although haptic feedback does not significantly enhance task efficiency, it improves user experience. Expert operators exhibit superior accuracy and apply lower forces during navigation. These findings offer empirical guidance for human–robot interaction design in neurointerventional robotics.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate robotic controller interfaces for interventional neuroradiology procedures in-vitro incorporating a force-sensing platform to assess safety. Methods: A custom endovascular robot, device-mimicking controller, and sensorized neurovascular phantom were developed. Ten interventional neuroradiologists (4 novices, 6 experts) performed simulated navigations using four control modalities: device-mimicking controllers with and without haptic feedback, joystick-based input, and manual navigation. Navigation time, peak vessel-wall forces, incorrect catheterisations, and prolapse events were assessed, alongside user analyses. Results: Manual navigation was fastest (mean 47.7 s) compared to haptic-on (248.7 s), haptic-off (314.7 s), and joystick (392.6 s) modalities (p<0.001). Regardless of controller type, vessel-wall forces were below the 0.70 N puncture threshold; therefore all modalities were considered safe. Joystick produced significantly more prolapse events than manual control (1.56 vs 0.13; p=0.018). Operator experience was relevant to performance: experts made fewer incorrect catheterisations than novices (0.25 vs 0.62; p=0.035) and applied less vessel-wall force (p<0.0005); these effects were sustained across controllers but accentuated when haptics were on. Users perceived haptic on and haptic off as similarly intuitive, and more intuitive than joystick (p=0.033). Conclusion: Device-mimicking robotic controllers outperform joystick interfaces on most metrics; haptic feedback shows promising but non-significant performance benefits.

Problem

• robotic intervention
• neuroradiology
• control interface
• haptic feedback
• navigation safety

Innovation

• haptic feedback
• robotic endovascular navigation
• force-sensing phantom
• device-mimicking controller
• interventional neuroradiology