Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Telementoring and Telerobotics in Urological Surgery

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For more than 150 years, doctors have had the ability to transmit medical information to advise and assist their colleagues in remote locations via teleconsultation using a variety of communication modalities. In surgery this has evolved into the telementoring of minimally invasive procedures, particularly, robotic surgery, which have become relatively commonplace in urology. The ultimate progression to true telerobotic surgery, in which remote surgeons independently perform complex and fundamental parts of procedures at long range, is starting to occur. This article discusses the current state of telementoring and telerobotics in urology and examines the pros and cons of this technology at the present time.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •Of importance

  1. Murphy RL Jr, Bird KT: Telediagnosis: a new community health resource. Observations on the feasibility of telediagnosis based on 1,000 patient transactions. Am J Public Health 1974, 64:113–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Micali S, Virgili G, Vannozzi E, et al.: Feasibility of telementoring between Baltimore (USA) and Rome (Italy): the first five cases. J Endourol 2000, 14:493–496.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dasgupta P: Robotics in urology. BJU Int 2001, 88:300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fabrizio MD, Lee BR, Chan DY, et al.: Effect of time delay on surgical performance during telesurgical manipulation. J Endourol 2000, 14:133–138.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosser JC Jr, Bell RL, Harnett B, et al.: Use of mobile low-bandwidth telemedical techniques for extreme telemedicine applications. J Am Coll Surg 1999, 189:397–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cubano M, Poulose BK, Talamini MA, et al.: Long distance telementoring. A novel tool for laparoscopy aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Surg Endosc 1999, 13:673–678.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW, et al.: Telementoring of laparoscopic procedures: initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 1996, 10:107–110.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Challacombe B, Kandaswamy R, Dasgupta P, Mamode N: Telementoring facilitates independent hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc 2005, 37:613–616.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Challacome BJ, Murphy D, Shah N, et al.: Trans-atlantic telerobotic watching using the da Vinci Surgical System. J Endourol 2006, 20:A229.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schulam PG, Docimo SG, Saleh W, et al.: Telesurgical mentoring. Initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 1997, 11:1001–1005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee BR, Caddedu JA, Janetschek G, et al.: International surgical telementoring: our initial experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 1998, 50:41–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rodrigues Netto N Jr, Mitre AI, Lima SV, et al.: Telementoring between Brazil and the United States: initial experience. J Endourol 2003, 17:217–220.

  13. Bove P, Stoianovici D, Micali S, et al.: Is telesurgery a new reality? Our experience with laparoscopic and percutaneous procedures. J Endourol 2003,17:137–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rovetta A, Sala R: Execution of robot assisted biopsies within the clinical context. J Image Guid Surg 1995, 1:280–287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jensen JF, Hill JW: Advanced telepresence surgery system development. Stud Health Technol Inform 1996, 29:107–117.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Satava RM: Virtual reality and telepresence for military medicine. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1997, 26:118–120.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Challacombe BJ, Kavoussi LR, Dasgupta P: Trans-oceanic telerobotic surgery. BJU Int 2003, 92:678–680.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Challacombe B, Patriciu A, Glass J, et al.: A randomized controlled trial of human versus robotic and telerobotic access to the kidney as the first step in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Comput Aided Surg 2005, 10:165–171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, et al.: Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 2001, 413:379–380.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hanley EJ, Miller BE, Herman BC, et al.: Stereoscopic robotic surgical telementoring: feasibility and future applications. Presented at the 10th Annual American Telemedicine Association. Denver, Colorado; April 17, 2005.

  21. • Sterbis JR, Hanly EJ, Herman BC, et al.: Transcontinental telesurgical nephrectomy using the da Vinci robot in a porcine model. Urology 2008, 71:971–973. This article describes the first use of the da Vinci platform in remote telesurgery.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 2006, 20:1389–1393.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Anvari M, Broderick T, Stein H, et al.: The impact of latency on surgical precision and task completion during robotic-assisted remote telepresence surgery. Comput Aided Surg 2005, 10:93–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nguan C, Miller B, Patel R: Pre-clinical remote telesurgery trial of a da Vinci telesurgery prototype. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2008, 4:304–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nguan CY, Morady R, Wang C, et al.: Robotic pyeloplasty using internet protocol and satellite network-based telesurgery. Int J Med Robot 2008, 4:10–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Satava RM: Future trends in the design and application of surgical robots. Semin Laparosc Surg 2004, 11:129–135.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bhattacharjee T, Son HI, Lee DY: Haptic control with environment force estimation for telesurgery. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2008, 2008:3241–3244.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Whiteford MH, Swanstrom LL: Emerging technologies including robotics and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) colorectal surgery. J Surg Oncol 2007, 96:678–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. • Suzuki N, Hattori A, Leiri S, et al.: Tele-control of an endoscopic surgical robot system between Japan and Thailand for tele-NOTES. Stud Health Technol Inform 2009, 142:374–379. This article includes the initial description of tele-NOTES as a technique.

  31. Natarajan S, Ganz A: SURGNET: an integrated Surgical Data Transmission System for Telesurgery. Int J Telemed Appl 2009 May 26 (Epub ahead of print).

  32. • Agarwal R, Levinson AW, Allaf M, et al.: The RoboConsultant: telementoring and remote presence in the operating room during minimally invasive urologic surgeries using a novel mobile robotic interface. Urology 2007, 70:970–974. This practical telementoring platform is transferable to multiple environments.

  33. Sereno S, Mutter D, Dallemagne B, et al.: Telementoring for minimally invasive surgical training by wireless robot. Surg Innov 2007, 14:184–191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Azerad A: Robot successfully completes unassisted heart surgery. Digital Lifestyle Magazine. Available at http://web.archive.org/web/20060820022121/http://www.dlmag.com/1653/robot-successfully-completes-unassisted-heart-surgery.html. Accessed September 2009.

  35. van Wynsberghe A, Gastmans C: Telesurgery: an ethical appraisal. J Med Ethics 2008, 34:e22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville, Victoria, 3050, Australia

    Ben Challacombe

  2. Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Stadium Road, Woolwich, London, SE18 4QH, England

    Sarah Wheatstone

Authors
  1. Ben Challacombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Wheatstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Challacombe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Challacombe, B., Wheatstone, S. Telementoring and Telerobotics in Urological Surgery. Curr Urol Rep 11, 22–28 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-009-0086-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-009-0086-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation