Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Force interaction, modeling and soft tissue deformation during reciprocating insertion of multi-part probe

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Reciprocating insertion of a four-part probe cuts peak interacting force on soft tissue by about 19 percent and average displacement by about 20 percent compared with direct pushing.

desk verdict The force reduction is the solid new result; the 'average displacement' reduction is a single PIV point and should not be generalized. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04609 v1 pith:OUCEQPAA submitted 2025-02-07 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Tassanai Parittotokkaporn , Matthew Oldfield , Luca Frasson , Ferdinando Rodriguez y Baena This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords reciprocatinginsertionmulti-partprobesofttissuedeformationforcebio-inspiredneedleovipositor-inspireddesignparticleimagevelocimetryviscoelasticmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a probe that moves in the same reciprocating way a wasp's ovipositor moves can enter soft tissue while transmitting less force and deforming the tissue less than a direct push. It builds a four-part probe whose segments are advanced in sequence, so that three stationary segments grip the tissue while the fourth segment cuts and slides forward. In gelatin tissue phantoms the authors measure the force reaching the sample with a force sensor and track particle displacements with a laser imaging technique. They report that, at the same overall forward speed of 1 mm/s, the cutting phase of reciprocal insertion lowers peak interacting force by about 19% and average soft-substrate displacement by about 20% compared with direct insertion. Their conclusion is that reciprocal motion changes how much energy is transferred to the tissue, pointing toward a less invasive insertion method.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the anchor-and-push cycle of the four-part probe: in each cycle one segment is driven inward while the other three remain stationary, so their combined extraction friction grips the tissue and lets the moving segment's tip cut through it. The governing condition is the force inequality $F_c + F_i < F_d < 3F_e$, where $F_c$ is the tip cutting force, $F_i$ the insertion friction on the moving segment, $F_d$ the driving force, and $F_e$ the extraction friction contributed by each stationary segment. The same translational-friction-plus-viscoelastic interaction is modeled as a lumped-element dynamical system for both insertion modes, and the experimental rig reads the tissue-side reaction force and tracks displacement vectors in the laser-illuminated plane.

What would settle it

Repeat the gelatin insertion protocol and report both the tissue-side peak force and the plateau-phase displacement averaged over all 30 tracking points, not just point [5,3]; if the reciprocal-versus-direct differences do not reproduce near 19% and 20% with a fresh set of samples, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the reciprocal mechanism shifts the force balance inside the tissue: the moving segment only has to overcome its own cutting and friction resistance, $F_c + F_i$, while the three stationary segments supply a combined extraction grip $3F_e$ that anchors the tissue, satisfying $F_c + F_i < F_d < 3F_e$. Direct insertion, by contrast, must push all four segments at once, requiring $4(F_c + F_i)$. Experimentally, the benefit appears during the plateau, or cutting, phase: the average peak interacting force on the gelatin sample was $0.56 \pm 0.08$ N for reciprocal motion at a segment speed of 4 mm/s versus $0.69 \pm 0.04$ N for direct pushing, and the average X-direction displacement at the tracked point near the far end of the probe fell from $3.63 \pm 0.25$ mm to $2.92 \pm 0.14$ mm. Slowing the reciprocal segments to 1 mm/s lowered both values further. The authors note that peak and relaxation displacements did not differ significantly; the advantage is specific to the cutting phase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the displacement recorded at PIV tracking point [5,3] — near the far end and close to the probe surface, in one two-dimensional laser plane — represents the average deformation of the whole soft substrate; if that point is not representative, the 20% deformation-reduction claim is overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A four-part probe can traverse tissue at the same net speed without ever applying the full direct-insertion force, so the actuator and frame do not need to deliver the peak load of a whole-probe push.
  • Lower segment speeds reduce both interacting force and transferred energy, so there is a speed-versus-tissue-load trade-off that a controller could exploit.
  • The force measured on the tissue side, not the force at the probe base, is what tracks the deformation benefit, so future comparisons of insertion devices should report tissue-side force.
  • The grip condition $F_c + F_i < 3F_e$ acts as a design rule: if the stationary segments cannot generate enough extraction friction, the tissue will be dragged rather than anchored and the reciprocal advantage should disappear.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the 20% deformation figure is a single-point measurement; averaging the plateau displacement over the full $5 \times 6$ tracking grid would reveal whether the benefit is volumetric or concentrated near the far end of the probe.
  • Editorial extension: the grip inequality suggests a direct test of the mechanism — lubricating the segment surfaces to lower extraction friction should erode the reciprocal advantage, which the paper does not run.
  • Editorial extension: if the effect carries to stiffer, perfused tissue, the same cycle could be tuned in real time to minimize displacement of a target structure during needle steering, but that extension goes beyond the gelatin-phantom evidence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a four-part probe inspired by wasp ovipositors, comparing reciprocal insertion (segments actuated alternately) with direct insertion into a gelatin soft-tissue phantom. The authors report, at an overall probe velocity of 1 mm/s, that reciprocal motion reduces the peak interacting force by about 19% (0.56±0.08 N vs 0.69±0.04 N) and the average soft-substrate displacement by about 20% (2.92±0.14 mm vs 3.63±0.25 mm at one PIV point), and they also present a Simscape model of the probe-tissue interaction. The abstract and conclusions generalize these findings to 'average displacement of the soft substrate.' The force measurements are direct and repeatable (n=6), whereas the displacement claim is based on a single PIV tracking point and lacks spatial averaging or statistical tests.

Significance. If the reported effect is real, the work has practical relevance for bio-inspired needle insertion and for understanding ovipositor mechanics. The strengths are the direct force-sensor measurements with six trials, the use of a non-invasive PIV method to image deformation, and a mechanical model that links the hypothesized anchoring mechanism to reduced transmitted force. However, the deformation half of the central claim is currently supported only by a single spatial point, and neither the force nor the displacement comparisons are accompanied by inferential statistics. The claim as written overstates the strength of the evidence, and the paper would need a reanalysis of the PIV grid and appropriate statistical reporting to support the abstract's generalized conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-D, Table II, Abstract] The 20% reduction in 'average displacement of the soft substrate' is computed from the temporal mean of X-displacement during the plateau phase at a single PIV location, [5,3], which is at the far end and close to the probe surface (Section III-D). The abstract and conclusions generalize this single-point value to the average displacement of the soft substrate, but no spatial average over the 5×6 tracking grid of Fig. 8 is presented. Because point [5,3] is adjacent to the open wall of the gelatin box and is explicitly selected for its largest displacement amplitude, the reported effect may be local rather than representative. The paper should either report a spatial mean over the full PIV grid (with trial-to-trial variation) or explicitly qualify the displacement claim as applying to this particular location only.
  2. [Tables I and II, Section III] No statistical tests are reported for any of the pairwise comparisons. For force, the 19% reduction is based on means and SDs for n=6 but no t-test or confidence interval is given; for displacement, Table II reports SDs but no sample size and no test, and the Vs:1 mm/s reciprocal force in Table I has no SD (presumably a single trial). The statement in Section III-D that peak and relaxation displacements are 'not significantly different' between direct and reciprocal insertion is made without any significance test. The paper should report the number of trials, statistical tests (or effect sizes with confidence intervals), and explicitly acknowledge that the Vs:1 mm/s reciprocal condition is not replicated.
  3. [II-A, Fig. 7(a), IV] The Simscape model is presented as supporting the hypothesis of reduced force interaction, but the anchoring mechanism (stationary segments gripping tissue) is built into the model as an input condition, so the model demonstrates the consequence of that assumption rather than independently validating it. Moreover, the model predicts an 11.43% peak-force reduction whereas the experiments show about 19%. The paper already states that the model's purpose 'was to support our hypothesis rather than to perfectly fit the experimental data,' but the discussion should more clearly separate the model's illustrative role from the experimental evidence, and should note that the model's quantitative discrepancy with the measured reduction limits its predictive value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equations (1) and (2)] Equations (1) and (2) have missing symbols in the text immediately around them (the variables F_d, F_i, F_c, F_e are named but their rendered forms are absent), making the inequalities hard to follow. Please re-check the formatting in the final version.
  2. [References] Reference [20] is cited as MathWorks Translational Friction, but the text at that citation point discusses Asadian et al. and the reference list appears to shift; please verify all citation-number mismatches, and also correct the reference formatting errors (e.g., missing journal names and page ranges in several entries).
  3. [Fig. 7(b)] Figure 7(b) shows average force profiles but no error bands or measures of trial-to-trial variability; adding shaded standard deviation regions would make the comparison more informative and would align with the SDs reported in Table I.
  4. [II-F] The testing protocol states that reciprocal motion at Vs=1 mm/s was added, but it does not state the number of trials for this condition; please report n for all conditions in the table captions or text.
  5. [III-C] The text states that displacement profiles do not return to their initial positions, which is a meaningful observation about permanent deformation; however, this permanent offset is not quantified or compared between conditions, and it could be reported as a separate metric.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central quantitative claims rest on direct measurements; the Simscape model is explicitly illustrative.

full rationale

The paper's central claims--roughly 19% lower peak interacting force and 20% lower average soft-substrate displacement during reciprocal insertion--are supported by direct force-sensor measurements (Table I) and laser PIV tracking (Table II), not by the Simscape model. Section III-A states the simulation's purpose 'was to support our hypothesis rather than to perfectly fit the experimental data,' so its 11.43% force-reduction figure is a modeling illustration rather than an independent prediction. The prior self-citations to the authors' PIV and reciprocal-motion work are technical background, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or imported definitions. The deformation claim's reliance on a single PIV point [5,3] in Table II and its generalization in the abstract to 'average displacement of the soft substrate' is a representativeness/overgeneralization concern, not circularity: the measured displacement is a direct observation, not a fitted input or an equation derived from itself. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The experimental comparison itself uses no fitted parameters; the central claim rests on direct force and PIV measurements. However, the supporting simulation has unstated free parameters, and several domain assumptions (frictionless bearing, gelatin as brain phantom, global force as proxy) are load-bearing. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Simscape model parameters (viscoelastic spring/damper constants, Stribeck/Coulomb/viscous friction coefficients) = not reported
    The simulation's output of 11.43% peak-force reduction depends on these values, but the paper provides no numeric parameters, so the model result cannot be reproduced or checked as a prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Wheel bearing and probe interlocking friction are negligible
    State in Section II.F and the Fig. 2 caption; if false, the measured reaction force is contaminated.
  • domain assumption Gelatin with 6% concentration is a valid soft tissue (brain) phantom
    Section II.C cites [20] but does not measure the mechanical properties of the specific sample used.
  • domain assumption The reaction force at the back of the box equals the net interaction force on the tissue
    Section III.B describes a global measurement, not a local probe-tissue force; the authors acknowledge this is the overall force on the sample.
  • domain assumption Modified Kelvin model and translational friction blocks capture needle-tissue interaction
    Section II.A; this underpins the simulation, not the experimental claim.
  • domain assumption PIV displacement in a single 2D plane represents tissue deformation
    Section II.E; out-of-plane motion is not measured, and the displacement claim uses one point in that plane.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Force interaction, modeling and soft tissue deformation during reciprocating insertion of multi-part probe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUCEQPAA

@misc{pith2026250204609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Force interaction, modeling and soft tissue deformation during reciprocating insertion of multi-part probe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUCEQPAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04609}
}
read the original abstract

The bio-inspired engineering of ovipositing wasps, which employ a reciprocating motion for soft tissue insertion, offers potential advantages in reducing insertion force and minimizing tissue damage. However, the underlying mechanisms of tissue interaction and sparing are not fully understood. In this study, we aim to investigate a multi-part probe designed to mimic the reciprocating motion of ovipositors. A reciprocal insertion model was developed to study the interaction between the probe and soft tissue, and experimental testing was conducted using a force sensor and laser optical technique to gain insights into interacting forces and tissue deformation. The results reveal that during the cutting phase of reciprocal motion, the peak force and average displacement of the soft substrate were approximately 19% and 20% lower, respectively, compared to direct insertion at an overall probe velocity of 1 mm/s. This study presents a novel approach combining mechanical modeling and experimental analysis to explore the force mechanics of the reciprocating insertion method, providing a better understanding of the interaction between the probe and soft tissue.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    King, The mechanism of drilling by wood wasp ovipositors, Biomimetics

    J.F.V Vincent, M.J. King, The mechanism of drilling by wood wasp ovipositors, Biomimetics. 3 (1995) 187–200

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Quicke, M.G

    D.L.J. Quicke, M.G. Fitton, J.R. Tunstead, S.N. Ingram, P.V. Gaitens, Ovipositor structure and relationships within the Hymenoptera, with special reference to the Ichneumonoidea, J. Nat. Hist. 28 (1994) 635–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222939400770301

    work page doi:10.1080/00222939400770301 1994

  3. [3]

    Quicke, A

    D. Quicke, A. LeRalec, L. Vilhelmsen, Ovipositor structure and function in the parasitic Hymenoptera with an exploration of new hypotheses, Atti Dell’Academia Naz. Ital. Di Entomol. Rend. 47 (2000) 197–239

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Parittotokkaporn, L

    T. Parittotokkaporn, L. Frasson, A. Schneider, S.E. Huq, B.L. Davies, P. Degenaar, J. Biesenack, F.M. Rodriguez y Baena, Soft tissue traversal with zero net force: Feasibility study of a biologically inspired design based on reciprocal motion, in: 2008 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Biomimetics, IEEE, 2009: pp. 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBIO.2009.4912983

    work page arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Frasson, T

    L. Frasson, T. Parittotokkaporn, A. Schneider, B.L. Davies, J.F.V. Vincent, S.E. Huq, P. Degenaar, F.M.R. Baena, Biologically inspired microtexturing: Investigation into the surface topography of next-generation neurosurgical probes, in: 2008 30th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc., IEEE, 2008: pp. 5611–5614. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2008.4650486

    work page arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Leibinger, A.E

    A. Leibinger, A.E. Forte, Z. Tan, M.J. Oldfield, F. Beyrau, D. Dini, F. Rodriguez y Baena, Soft Tissue Phantoms for Realistic Needle Insertion: A Comparative Study, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 44 (2016) 2442–2452. 9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1523-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10439-015-1523-0 2016

  7. [7]

    Y. Ma, X. Xiao, H. Ren, M.Q.-H. Meng, A review of bio-inspired needle for percutaneous interventions, Biomim. Intell. Robot. (2022) 100064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.birob.2022.100064

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Alkalla, Y

    M.G. Alkalla, Y. Gao, A. Bouton, Customizable and Optimized Drill Bits Bio–inspired from Wood–Wasp Ovipositor Morphology for Extraterrestrial Surfaces, in: 2019 IEEE/ASME Int. Conf. Adv. Intell. Mechatronics, IEEE, 2019: pp. 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIM.2019.8868816

    work page arXiv 2019

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Sakes, I.A

    A. Sakes, I.A. van de Steeg, E.P. de Kater, P. Posthoorn, M. Scali, P. Breedveld, Development of a Novel Wasp-Inspired Friction-Based Tissue Transportation Device, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8 (2020) 1124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.575007

    2020

  2. [10]

    J. Kerl, T. Parittotokkaporn, L. Frasson, M. Oldfield, F. Rodriguez y Baena, F. Beyrau, Tissue deformation analysis using a laser based digital image correlation technique, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 6 (2012) 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.10.007

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Oldfield, C

    M.J. Oldfield, C. Burrows, J. Kerl, L. Frasson, T. Parittotokkaporn, F. Beyrau, F. Rodriguez y Baena, Highly resolved strain imaging during needle insertion: Results with a novel biologically inspired device, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 30 (2014) 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Ellery, M

    Yang Gao, A. Ellery, M. Jaddou, J.F.V. Vincent, Deployable Wood Wasp Drill for Planetary Subsurface Sampling, in: 2006 IEEE Aerosp. Conf., IEEE, 2006: pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2006.1655756

    2006 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Fukushima, K

    Y. Fukushima, K. Naemura, Estimation of the friction force during the needle insertion using the disturbance observer and the recursive least square, ROBOMECH J. 1 (2014) 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40648-014-0014-7

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Kataoka, T

    H. Kataoka, T. Washio, K. Chinzei, K. Mizuhara, C. Simone, A.M. Okamura, Measurement of the Tip and Friction Force Acting on a Needle during Penetration, in: 2002: pp. 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45786-0_27

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    Okamura, C

    A.M. Okamura, C. Simone, M.D. O’Leary, Force Modeling for Needle Insertion Into Soft Tissue, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51 (2004) 1707–1716. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2004.831542

    2004

  8. [16]

    van Meer, U

    N.M.M.E. van Meer, U. Cerkvenik, C.M. Schlepütz, J.L. van Leeuwen, S.W.S. Gussekloo, The ovipositor actuation mechanism of a parasitic wasp and its functional implications, J. Anat. 237 (2020) 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.13216

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Sprang, P

    T. Sprang, P. Breedveld, D. Dodou, Wasp-Inspired Needle Insertion with Low Net Push Force, in: 2016: pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42417-0_28

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Mahvash, P.E

    M. Mahvash, P.E. Dupont, Mechanics of Dynamic Needle Insertion into a Biological Material, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 57 (2010) 934–943. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2009.2036856

    2010

  11. [19]

    Asadian, R

    A. Asadian, R. V. Patel, M.R. Kermani, Dynamics of Translational Friction in Needle–Tissue Interaction During Needle Insertion, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 42 (2014) 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0892-5

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    https://au.mathworks.com/help/simscape/ref/translationalfriction.html#References

    Mathworks, Translational Friction Friction in contact between moving bodies, (2023). https://au.mathworks.com/help/simscape/ref/translationalfriction.html#References

    2023

  13. [21]

    Ritter, E.G

    R.C. Ritter, E.G. Quate, G.T. Gillies, M.S. Grady, M.A. Howard, W.C. Broaddus, Measurement of friction on straight catheters in in vitro brain and phantom material, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 45 (1998) 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.664203

    1998 doi

  14. [22]

    Oldfield, A

    M.J. Oldfield, A. Leibinger, T.E.T. Seah, F. Rodriguez y Baena, Method to Reduce Target Motion Through Needle–Tissue Interactions, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 43 (2015) 2794–2803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1329-0

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Parittotokkaporn, L

    T. Parittotokkaporn, L. Frasson, A. Schneider, B.L. Davies, P. Degenaar, F. Rodriguez y Baena, Insertion experiments of a biologically inspired microtextured and multi-part probe based on reciprocal motion, in: 2010 Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol., IEEE, 2010: pp. 3190–3...

    2010

  16. [24]

    Balusamy, M.M

    S. Balusamy, M.M. Kamal, S.M. Lowe, B. Tian, Y. Gao, S. Hochgreb, Laser diagnostics of pulverized coal combustion in O2/N2 and O2/CO2 conditions: velocity and scalar field measurements, Exp. Fluids. 56 (2015) 108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-015-1965-z

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    De Lorenzo, Y

    D. De Lorenzo, Y. Koseki, E. De Momi, K. Chinzei, A.M. Okamura, Coaxial Needle Insertion Assistant With Enhanced Force Feedback, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 60 (2013) 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2012.2227316

    2013

  18. [26]

    Brett, T.J

    P.N. Brett, T.J. Parker, A.J. Harrison, T.A. Thomas, A. Carr, Simulation of resistance forces acting on surgical needles, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 211 (1997) 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1243/0954411971534467

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    Aoyagi, H

    S. Aoyagi, H. Izumi, M. Fukuda, Biodegradable polymer needle with various tip angles and consideration on insertion mechanism of mosquito’s proboscis, Sensors Actuators A Phys. 143 (2008) 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2007.06.007

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    Cerkvenik, B

    U. Cerkvenik, B. van de Straat, S.W.S. Gussekloo, J.L. van Leeuwen, Mechanisms of ovipositor insertion and steering of a parasitic wasp, in: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2017: pp. E7822–E7831. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706162114. 10

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Matheson, F

    E. Matheson, F. Rodriguez y Baena, Biologically Inspired Surgical Needle Steering: Technology and Application of the Programmable Bevel-Tip Needle, Biomimetics. 5 (2020) 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics5040068

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Frasson, T

    L. Frasson, T. Parittotokkaporn, B.L. Davies, F.R. y Baena, Early developments of a novel smart actuator inspired by nature, Int. J. Intell. Syst. Technol. Appl. 8 (2010) 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISTA.2010.030220

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Scali, T.P

    M. Scali, T.P. Pusch, P. Breedveld, D. Dodou, Ovipositor-inspired steerable needle: design and preliminary experimental evaluation, Bioinspir. Biomim. 13 (2017) 016006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/aa92b9

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Secoli, E

    R. Secoli, E. Matheson, M. Pinzi, S. Galvan, A. Donder, T. Watts, M. Riva, D.D. Zani, L. Bello, F. Rodriguez Y Baena, Modular robotic platform for precision neurosurgery with a bio-inspired needle: System overview and first in-vivo deployment., PLoS One. 17 (2022) e0275686. ht...

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Leibinger, M.J

    A. Leibinger, M.J. Oldfield, F. Rodriguez y Baena, Minimally disruptive needle insertion: a biologically inspired solution, Interface Focus. 6 (2016) 20150107. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2015.0107. 11

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.