Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The role of telementoring and telerobotic assistance in the provision of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in rural areas

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess whether telementoring and telerobotic assistance would improve the range and quality of laparoscopic colorectal surgery being performed by community surgeons.

Methods

We present a series of 18 patients who underwent telementored or telerobotically assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery in two community hospitals between December 2002 and December 2003. Four community surgeons with no formal advanced laparoscopic fellowship were remotely mentored and assisted by an expert surgeon from a tertiary care center. Telementoring was achieved with real-time two-way audio-video communications over bandwidths of 384 kbps–1.2 mbps and included one redo ileocolic resection, two right hemicolectomies, two sigmoid resections, three low anterior resections, one subtotal colectomy, one reversal of a Hartmann operation, and one abdominoperineal resection. A Zeus TS microjoint system (Computer Motion Inc, Santa Barbara CA) was used to provide telepresence for the telerobotically assisted laparoscopic procedures, which included three right hemicolectomies, three sigmoid resections, and one low anterior resection.

Results

There were no major intraoperative complications. There were two minor intraoperative complications involving serosal tears of the colon from the robotic graspers. In the telementored cases, there were two postoperative complications requiring reoperation (intra-abdominal bleeding and small bowel obstruction). Two telementored procedures were converted because of the mentee’s inability to find the appropriate planes of dissection. One telerobotically assisted procedure was completed laparoscopically by the local surgeon with aid of telementoring because of inadequate robotic arm position. The median length of hospital stay for this series was 4 days. The surgeons considered telementoring useful in all cases (median score 4 out of 5). The use of remote telerobotic assistance was also considered a significant enabling tool.

Conclusions

Telementoring and remote telerobotic assistance are excellent tools for supporting community surgeons and providing patients better access to advanced surgical care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander RJ, Jaques BC, Mitchell KG (1993) Laparoscopically assisted colectomy and wound recurrence. Lancet 341: 249–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Anvari M, Birch DW, Bamehriz F, Chapman T (2004) Robotic assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery using Zeus. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percut Techn 14: 311–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anvari M, McKinley C, Stein H (2005) Establishment of the world’s first telerobotic remote surgical service for provision of advanced laparoscopic surgery in a rural community. Ann Surg 241: 460–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett CL, Stryker SJ, Ferreira MR, Adams J, Beart RW (1997) The learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Preliminary results from a prospective analysis of 1194 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies. Arch Surg 132: 41–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Berends FJ, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, Lange JF (1994) Subcutaneous metastases after laparoscopic colectomy. Lancet 344: 58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen HH, Wexner SD, Iroatulam AJ, Pikarsky AJ, Alabaz O, Nogueras JJ, Nessim A, Weiss EG (2000) Laparoscopic colectomy compares favorably with colectomy by laparotomy for reduction of postoperative ileus. Dis Colon Rectum 43: 61–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cirocco WC, Schwartzman A, Golub RW (1994) Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. Surgery 116: 842–884

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350: 2050–2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Delaney CP, Kiran RP, Senagore AJ, Brady K, Fazio VW (2003) Case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcome after laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 238: 67–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dubois F, Berthelot G, Levard H (1989) Cholecystectomy by coelioscopy. Presse Med 18: 980–982

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dubois F, Icard P, Berthelot G, Levard H (1990) Coelioscopic cholecystectomy. Preliminary report of 36 cases. Ann Surg 211: 60–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Eadie LH, Seifalian M, Davidson BR (2003) Telemedicine in surgery. Br J Surg 90: 647–658

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Franklin ME Jr, Rosenthal D, Abrego-Medina D, Dorman JP, Glass JL, Norem R, Diaz A (1996) Prospective comparison of open vs. laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma. Five year results. Dis Colon Rectum 39(10 Suppl): S35–S46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fusco MA, Paluzzi MW (1993) Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for adenocarcinoma of the colon: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 36: 858–861

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Haukipuro K, Ohinmaa A, Winblad I, Linden T, Vuolio S (2000) The feasibility of telemedicine for orthopaedic outpatient clinics—a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare 6: 193–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hussain P, Melville D, Mannings R, Curry D, Kay D, Ford P (1995) Evaluation of a training and diagnostic ultrasound service for general practitioners using narrowband ISDN. J Telemed Telecare 5(suppl 1): 95–99

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1: 144–145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kockerling F, Schneider C., Reymond MA, Scheidbach H, Konradt J, Barlehner E, Bruch HP, Kuthe A, Troidl H, Hohenberger W (1998) Early results of a prospective multicenter study on 500 consecutive cases of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 12: 37–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Levine SR. Gorman M (1999) “Telestroke”: the application of telemedicine for stroke. Stroke 30: 464–469

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Marks JM, Nussbaum MS, Pritts TA, Scheeres DE (2001) Evaluation of endoscopic and laparoscopic training practices in surgical residency programs. Surg Endosc 15: 1011–1015

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. NIH Consensus conference (1993) Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 269: 1018–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pappas TN, Jacobs DO (2004) Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer—the end of the beginning? N Engl J Med 350: 2091–2092

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Peters WR, Bartels TL (1993) Minimally invasive colectomy: are the potential benefits realized? Dis Colon Rectum 36: 751–756

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pirisi A (2003) Telerobotics brings surgical skills to remote communities. Lancet 361: 1794–1795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Poulin EC, Mamazza J, Schlachta CM, Gregoire R, Roy N (1999) Laparoscopic resection does not adversely affect early survival curves in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 229:487–492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosenfeld BA, Dorman T, Breslow MJ, Pronovost P, Jenckes M, Zhang N, Anderson G, Rubin H (2000) ICU telemedicine: alternate paradigm for providing continuous intensivist care. Crit Care Med 28: 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schlachta CM, Mamazza J, Gregoire R, Burpee SE, Poulin EC (2003) Could laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery become the standard of care? A review and experience with 750 procedures. Can J Surg 46: 432–444

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Semm K (1983) Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy 15: 59–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Senagore AJ (2001) Laparoscopic techniques in intestinal surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg 8: 183–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shanit D, Cheng A, Greenbaum RA (1996) Telecardiology: supporting the decision-making process in general practice. J Telemed Telecare 2: 7–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) (1998) Integrating advanced laparoscopy into surgical residency training. Surg Endosc 12: 374–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stocchi L, Nelson H (2000) Wound recurrences following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Arch Surg 135: 948–958

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wishner JD, Baker JW Jr, Hoffman GC, Hubbard GW, Gould RJ, Wohlgemuth SD, Ruffin WK, Melick CF (1995) Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. The learning curve. Surg Endosc 9: 1179–1183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Wootton R, Loane M, Mair F, Moutray M, Harrisson S, Sivananthan S, Allen A, Doolittle G, McLernan A (1998) The potential for telemedicine in home nursing. J Telemed Telecare 4: 214–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Catherine Gill Pottruff and Trevor Chapman for assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Bay District Hospital, 720 Mclaren St., P.O. Box 2500, North Bay, Ontario, P1B 3L9, Canada

    H. Sebajang, A. Dougall, S. Hegge & C. McKinley

  2. Centre Hospitalier de la Sagamie, 305 Au St-Vallier, CP 5006, Chicoutimi, Quebec, G7H 5H6, Canada

    P. Trudeau

  3. Centre for Minimal Access Surgery, McMaster University, 50 Charlton Ave. E., Haminton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada

    H. Sebajang & M. Anvari

Authors
  1. H. Sebajang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Trudeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Dougall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Hegge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. McKinley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Anvari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Anvari.

Additional information

Supported by a grant from the Canada Health Infostructure Partnership Program (CHIPP)

Presented to the Society of American Gastroenterologist Endoscopic Surgeons, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, April 2005

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sebajang, H., Trudeau, P., Dougall, A. et al. The role of telementoring and telerobotic assistance in the provision of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in rural areas. Surg Endosc 20, 1389–1393 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0260-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0260-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation