LPR: from a lab idea to a clinical prototype

Jun 1, 2020 · 5 min read
The LPR β prototype, placed on a healthy subject at the MRI tunnel entrance during preclinical trials
projects

Taking a medical robot from concept to first-in-human trials: TRL maturation, quality assurance, risk analysis and industrial spin-off.

The clinical gesture

Inserting a needle under image guidance is a common interventional-radiology procedure: for a biopsy or tumour ablation, the clinician acquires a volume image, plans a trajectory on one slice, then inserts the needle. The gesture is delicate — at the moment of insertion the radiologist has very few guidance tools and relies mostly on experience and on memorising the chosen slice. Under CT, checking the trajectory means repeated control images, hence radiation and back-and-forth; under MRI, the gesture becomes almost impossible to perform by hand inside the bore.

The interventional-radiology gesture in context
The radiologist memorises the slice on which the needle trajectory was planned

The LPR (Light Puncture Robot) addresses this: a lightweight robot placed directly on the patient to follow its motion as closely as possible, able to hold, position and insert the needle under the clinician’s control. It is compatible with both X-ray CT and MRI — therefore built entirely from non-ferromagnetic materials — and registers itself automatically in the image. The video below sums it up, from registration to needle positioning:

Climbing the TRLs

The real challenge with a medical device isn’t having the idea: it’s pushing it up the technology-readiness levels (TRL) until it can be tested on humans. Here is the path the LPR travelled, from concept (TRL 1) to clinical prototype (TRL 6):

LPR technology-readiness ladder, from concept to clinical prototype, with one prototype per step

The first steps were quick: observing the clinical procedure, the first design, the first prototype (the α prototype, already there when I joined the team). The real work started afterwards. Moving from TRL 4 to TRL 5 — from a lab-validated robot to one cleared for testing on humans — took far more than research: a redesign of the code under quality assurance, a full risk analysis, and outside expertise. We worked with our partner Axe Systems to manufacture the mechanical part under quality assurance, and with the clinical investigation centre (CIC-IT) of Grenoble Alpes University Hospital and the company SQI for risk analysis and quality-controlled development. This file secured clearance from the French medicines agency (ANSM) and let us build a protocol guaranteeing the robot’s safety for preclinical trials on healthy subjects in MRI, without needle insertion.

The LPR shown as a CAD model registered in the MRI image, inside the CamiTK guidance software rebuilt under quality assurance — the redesign was also a software one

Preclinical trials of the LPR on a healthy subject in MRI, monitored by two engineers

These trials mobilised, over two years, a ten-person team that I coordinated (3 from the CIC-IT, 3 from TIMC, 2 from Axe Systems, 2 from SQI).

Moving from TRL 4 to TRL 5 means rewriting the code under quality assurance, running a risk analysis, and making research, clinical and industry teams work together. That is exactly the work a company expects when it wants to turn a promising prototype into a credible device.

The next step — industrialisation — could no longer happen in the lab. So I led a start-up project built on the robot, supported by Grenoble’s tech-transfer office (SATT Linksium), first in maturation (2017) then in incubation (2018–2019). This phase produced two patents and two applications to the national BPI i-Lab innovation contest (2018 and 2019). The feedback was excellent — 17/20 on the technology dimension, 14.6/20 on the financial dimension, 14.8/20 overall — but the project was ultimately not funded. I recruited and supervised an engineer (Jérémy Lenfant) and then two successive co-founders for the business side (Bertrand Perrin, then Antoine Bourrier).

Project management: the funding

Beyond the technical side, the LPR was a long exercise in coordination at the research / clinical / industry interface, backed by a series of grants I secured and ran:

ProjectRoleFunder / typePartnersPeriod
RobacusCoordinatorANR TecSan — ANR-11-TECS-020-01TIMC, LIRMM, Grenoble Alpes Univ. Hospital (CIC-IT, radiology), Axe Systems2012–2015
LPROPCoordinatorCarnot LSI Institute — pre-maturationTIMC2015–2016
Emergence (×2)CoordinatorTIMC — internal (equipment & interns)TIMC2016–2017
LPR maturationCoordinatorSATT LinksiumTIMC, Linksium2017
LPR incubationCoordinatorSATT LinksiumLinksium, co-founders2018–2019

Behind the scenes: remote control of the robot

In collaboration with the LIRMM team (Montpellier), a partner in the Robacus project, we demonstrated real-time remote control of the robot through a force-feedback teleoperation interface — a step toward a gesture where the radiologist would drive insertion from the control room, without radiation exposure. This feasibility demo was not taken further, but it nicely illustrates the flexibility of the guidance software’s architecture, built on CamiTK, the medical-application prototyping framework I co-develop: its modularity made it possible to reuse code from one prototype version to the next, rather than rewriting everything.

Skills brought to bear

Multi-partner project coordination (research · clinical · industry) · quality-assured and risk-analysed development of a medical device · running regulated preclinical trials on healthy subjects · TRL maturation of a software component, from concept to clinical prototype · industrial maturation and incubation (patent drafting, business plan, team recruitment) · modular, reusable software architecture for medical prototyping.

Céline Fouard, PhD
Authors
CAMI Application Prototyping Consultant
Tenured assistant professor at Grenoble University, I specializes in computer science for medicine and Computer Assisted Medical Intervention software prototyping.