Advertisement

Is remote live urologic surgery a reality? Evidences from a systematic review of the literature

  • Domenico VenezianoEmail author
  • A. Tafuri
  • J. Gomez Rivas
  • A. Dourado
  • Z. Okhunov
  • B. K. Somani
  • N. Marino
  • G. Fuchs
  • G. Cacciamani
  • ESUT-YAUWP Group
Topic Paper

Abstract

Introduction and objectives

The possibility of performing remote-surgery has been the goal to achieve, since the early development of the first surgical robotic platforms. This systematic review aims to analyse the state of the art in the field and to provide an overview of the possible growth of this technology.

Methods

All English language publications on Telementoring and Telesurgery for minimally invasive urologic procedures were evaluated. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement to evaluate PubMed®, Scopus®, and Web of Science™ databases (up to June 2019).

Results

Our electronic search identified a total of 124 papers in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Of these, 81 publications were identified for detailed review, which yielded 22 included in the present systematic review. Our results showed that remote surgery has been under-utilised until today, mostly due to the lack of appropriate telecommunication technologies.

Conclusion

Remote live surgery is a growing technology that is catalyzing incremental interest. Despite not being yet reliable today on a regular basis in its most advanced applications, thanks to the advent of novel data-transmission technologies, telepresence might become a critical educational methodology, highly impacting the global healthcare system

Keywords

Live surgery Telementoring Teleassistance Teletraining Telesurgery Telepresence Remote 

Notes

Author contributions

DV: Manuscript writing, Protocol development. AT: Project development. JGR: Manuscript editing. AD: Manuscript editing. ZO: Manuscript editing. BKS: Manuscript editing. NM: Data collection. GF: Protocol development. GC: Data collection and management.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

None.

Informed consent

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H (2011) Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (Background Document). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 5 Nov 2019
  3. 3.
    Janetschek G, Bartsch G, Kavoussi LR (1998) Transcontinental interactive laparoscopic telesurgery between the United States and Europe. J Urol 160(4):1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer JJ, Lee BR, Bishoff JT, Janetschek G, Bunyaratavej P, Kamolpronwijit W, Ratchanon S, O'Kelley S, Cadeddu JA, Micali S (2000) International surgical telementoring using a robotic arm: our experience. Telemed J 6(1):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee BR, Png DJ, Liew L, Fabrizio M, Li MK, Jarrett JW, Kavoussi LR (2000) Laparoscopic telesurgery between the United States and Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singap 29(5):665–668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Micali S, Virgili G, Vannozzi E, Grassi N, Jarrett T, Bauer J, Vespasiani G, Kavoussi L (2000) Feasibility of telementoring between Baltimore (USA) and Rome (Italy): the first five cases. J Endourol 14(6):493–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bauer J, Lee BR, Stoianovici D, Bishoff JT, Micali S, Micali F, Kavoussi LR (2001) Remote percutaneous renal access using a new automated telesurgical robotic system. Telemed J E-Health 7(4):341–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rassweiler J, Frede T, Seemann O, Stock C, Sentker L (2001) Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy—initial experience. Eur Urol 40(1):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bove P, Stoianovici D, Micali S, Patriciu A, Grassi N, Jarrett TW, Vespasiani G, Kavoussi LR (2003) Is telesurgery a new reality? Our experience with laparoscopic and percutaneous procedures. J Endourol 17(3):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Challacombe B, Patriciu A, Glass J, Aron M, Jarrett T, Kim F, Pinto P, Stoianovici D, Smeeton N, Tiptaft R (2005) A randomised controlled trial of human versus telerobotic access to the kidney during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Comput Aided Surg 10(3):165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodrigues N Jr, Mitre NAI, Lima SVC, Fugita OE, Lopes Lima M, Stoianovici D, Patriciu A, Kavoussi LR (2003) Telementoring between Brazil and the United States: initial experience. J Endourol 17(4):217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luke PP, Girvan AR, Al Omar M, Beasley KA, Carson M (2004) Laparoscopic robotic pyeloplasty using the Zeus Telesurgical System. Can J Urol 11(5):2396–2400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Challacombe B, Kandaswamy R, Dasgupta P, Mamode N (2005) Telementoring facilitates independent hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. In: Transplantation proceedings. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agarwal R, Levinson AW, Allaf M, Makarov DV, Nason A, Su L-M (2007) The RoboConsultant: telementoring and remote presence in the operating room during minimally invasive urologic surgeries using a novel mobile robotic interface. Urology 70(5):970–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nguan CY, Morady R, Wang C, Harrison D, Browning D, Rayman R, Luke PP (2008) Robotic pyeloplasty using internet protocol and satellite network-based telesurgery. Int J Med Robot 4(1):10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shivji S, Metcalfe P, Khan A, Bratu I (2011) Pediatric surgery telehealth: patient and clinician satisfaction. Pediatr Surg Int 27(5):523–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson SM, Kapp BB, Angell JM, Abd TT, Thompson NJ, Ritenour CWM, Issa MM (2013) Remote monitoring and supervision of urology residents utilizing integrated endourology suites—a prospective study of patients' opinions. J Endourol 27(1):96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hinata N, Miyake H, Kurahashi T, Ando M, Furukawa J, Ishimura T, Tanaka K, Fujisawa M (2014) Novel telementoring system for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact on the learning curve. Urology 83(5):1088–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Safir IJ, Shrewsberry AB, Issa IM, Ogan K, Ritenour CWM, Sullivan J, Issa MM (2015) Impact of remote monitoring and supervision on resident training using new ACGME milestone criteria. Can J Urol 22(5):7959–7964PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shin DH, Dalag L, Azhar RA, Santomauro M, Satkunasivam R, Metcalfe C, Dunn M, Berger A, Djaladat H, Nguyen M (2015) A novel interface for the telementoring of robotic surgery. BJU Int 116(2):302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu S, Perez M, Yang K, Perrenot C, Felblinger J, Hubert J (2015) Effect of latency training on surgical performance in simulated robotic telesurgery procedures. Int J Med Robot 11(3):290–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hougen HY, Lobo JM, Corey T, Jones R, Rheuban K, Schenkman NS, Krupski TL (2016) Optimizing and validating the technical infrastructure of a novel tele-cystoscopy system. Int Neurourol J 22(7):397–404Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perez M, Xu S, Chauhan S, Tanaka A, Simpson K, AbdulMuhsin H, Smith R (2016) Impact of delay on telesurgical performance: study on the robotic simulator dV-Trainer. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11(4):581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Antonelli A, Carrieri G, Porreca A, Veneziano D, Artibani W (2018) Live surgery: is operating at home the way forward? Eur Urol 74(4):403–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    World Health Organization (2006) The world health report 2006: working together for health. World Health Organization, GenevaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ciaramella S (2019) Health care orgaizations work to combat the doctor shortage. Chamber Business newsGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cocci A, Patruno G, Gandaglia G et al (2016) Urology residency training in Italy : results of the first national survey. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carrion DM, RodriguezSocarrás ME, Mantica G et al (2019) Current status of urology surgical training in Europe: an ESRU–ESU–ESUT collaborative study. WJUrol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02763-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veneziano D, Minervini A, Beatty J, Fornara P, Gozen A, Greco F, Langenhuijsen JF, Lunelli L, Overgaauw D, Rassweiler J, Rocco B, Sanchez Salas R, Shariat S, Sweet RM, Simone G, Springer C, Tuccio A, Cleynenbreugel B, Weibl P, Cozzupoli P (2016) Construct, content and face validity of the Camera Handling Trainer (CHT): a new E-blus training task for 30° laparoscope navigation skills. World J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1657-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veneziano D, Ploumidis A, Proietti S, Tokas T, Kamphuis G, Tripepi G, Cleynenbreugel B, Gozen A, Breda A, Palou J, Sarica K, Liatsikos E, Ahmed K, Somani BK, on behalf of the European School of Urology training group (2018) Evolution and Uptake of the Endoscopic Stone Treatment Step 1 (EST-s1) protocol: establishment, validation and assessment in a collaboration by the European School of Urology and the Uro-Technology and Urolithiasis Sections. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Somani BK, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Gozen A, Palou J, Barmoshe S, Biyani S, Gaya JM, Hellawell G, Pini G, Faba RO, Sanchez Salas R, Macek P, Skolarikos A, Wagner C, Eret V, Haensel S, Siena G, Schmidt M, Klitsch M, Vesely S, Ploumidis A, Proietti S, Kamphuis G, Tokas T, Geraghty R, Veneziano D (2018) The European Urology Residents Education Programme Hands-on Training Format: 4 years of hands-on training improvements from the European School of Urology. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Veneziano D, Ploumidis A, Proietti S, Tokas T, Kamphuis G, Tripepi G, Cleynenbreugel B, Gozen A, Breda A, Palou J, Sarica K, Liatsikos E, Ahmed K, Somani BK, ESU Training Group (2019) Validation of the endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST-s1): a novel EAU training and assessment tool for basic endoscopic stone treatment skills-a collaborative work by ESU, ESUT and EULIS. World J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02736-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology and Kidney TransplantGrande Ospedale MetropolitanoReggio CalabriaItaly
  2. 2.Department of UrologyZucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/NorthwellHempsteadUSA
  3. 3.USC Institute of Urology and Catherine and JosephUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of UrologyUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  5. 5.Department of UrologyHospital Universitario La PazMadridSpain
  6. 6.Department of Urology, Camargo Cancer CenterSao PauloBrasil
  7. 7.Department of UrologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  8. 8.University Hospital Southampton NHS TrustSouthamptonUK
  9. 9.University of FoggiaFoggiaItaly

Personalised recommendations