Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 2170–2177 | Cite as

The Martian chronicles: remotely guided diagnosis and treatment in the arctic circle

  • Christian Otto
  • Jean-Marc Comtois
  • Ashot Sargsyan
  • Alexandria Dulchavsky
  • Ilan Rubinfeld
  • Scott Dulchavsky
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

Despite rigorous health screening in astronaut crews, there are a number of conditions that may occur during long duration, exploration class spaceflight. The risk of abdominal conditions requiring surgical intervention is not clear, yet submarine and polar base experiences suggest contingency planning is warranted. While radio communication time delay is only 2 s to the international space station (ISS), a potential Mars mission would necessitate time delays of about 15 min. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of remote expert guidance of diagnostic ultrasound followed by laparoscopic appendectomy in a simulated Mars environment.

Methods

Research was deemed exempt by the institutional review board. A simulated Mars research environment was utilized on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic. Electronic communications including audio and video were established between the Arctic base and Henry Ford Hospital serving as Mission Control and incorporated the 15-min communications lag into all communication. Ultrasound and laparoscopic capabilities were integrated into communications for remote guidance. Remote guidance methods and technology utilized has been previously published in communication with the ISS. A simulated scenario involving a young female astronaut developing right lower quadrant pain was developed and utilized for this demonstration. An anatomical appendectomy model was utilized for the ultrasound and laparoscopic portions. Reference aids describing background technical aspects were developed. A set of confirmation milestones was used to generate a hard stop and mandated remote review.

Results

The simulated appendectomy was successfully pursued on the first attempt with no delays or untoward events. Reference aids were appropriate for non-surgical personnel and hard stops for milestones with remote approval and go ahead were shown to be feasible. The appendicitis was appropriately diagnosed utilizing remote guidance of ultrasonography and the appendix removed laparoscopically using stapled technique with remote guidance as well.

Conclusions

We report a successful remote guidance demonstration from a simulated mars environment with clinical control from a terrestrial base utilizing appropriate delay and consistent bandwidth and technology

Keywords

Appendicitis Spaceflight Ultrasound 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The study was supported by the National Space Biomedical Research Institute through NASA NCC 9-58.

Disclosures

Christian Ott, John Comptois, Ashot Sargsyan, Ilan Rubinfeld, Scott Dulchavsky, and Alexandria Dulchavsky have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Davis JR (1998) Medical issues for a mission to Mars. Aviat Space Environ Med 70:162–168Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foale CM, Kaleri AY, Sargsyan AE, Hamilton DR, Melton S, Martin D, Dulchavsky SA (2005) Diagnostic instrumentation aboard ISS: just-in-time training for nonphysician crewmembers. Aviat Space Environ Med 76:594–598PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams ML (1990) The medical management of acute appendicitis in a nonsurgical environment: a retrospective case review. Mil Med 155:345–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell MR (2002) Surgical care in space: a review. J Am Coll Surg 194:802–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen B (1994) A study of submarine morbidity. Submitted NUMI qualification thesis. Naval Undersea Medical InstituteGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lugg DJ (1979) Appendicitis in polar regions. Diploma in Polar Studies thesis. University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lugg DJ (1994) Antarctica as a space laboratory: Antarctic science: global concerns. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 229–242Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norman JC (1959) Appendicitis in submariners. US Armed Forces Med J 10:689–692Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Streletsky VH (1976) Clinical course and diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the Arctic region. Khirurgiya Moskva 53:28–32Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Campbell MR, Johnston SL, Marshburn T, Kane J, Lugg D (2004) Nonoperative treatment of suspected appendicitis in remote medical environments: implications for future spaceflight medical care. J Am Coll Surg 198:822–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nicogossian AE, Huntoon CL, Pool SL (1989) Physiological adaptation to spaceflight. In: Nicogossian AE, Huntoon CL, Pool SL (eds) Space physiology and medicine, 2nd edn. Lea and Febinger, Philadelphia, pp 139–248Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Foraker AG (1981) A reluctant surgeon at sea. JAMA 245(22):2302–2303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Houk VN (1959) Appendicitis treated nonsurgically at the South Pole. US Armed Forces J 10:1352–1354Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hyer RN (1999) Telemedical experiences at an Antarctic station. J Telemed Telecare 5(Suppl 1):S87–S89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Newkirk D (1990) Almanac of Soviet manned space flight. Gulf Publishing, Houston, pp 47–74Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132:910–925PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaneko K, Tsuda M (2004) Ultrasound-based decision making in the treatment of acute appendicitis in children. J Pediatr Surg 39:1316–1320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis FR, Holcoft JW, Boey J, Dunphy JE (1975) Appendicitis: a critical review of diagnosis and treatment in 1,000 cases. Arch Surg 110:667–671Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paull DL, Bloom GP (1982) Appendiceal abscess. Arch Surg 117:1017–1019PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grieg JD, Nixon SJ (1995) Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 82:1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hale DA, Molloy M, Pearl RH, Schutt DC, Jaques DP (1997) Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal (review). Ann Surg 225:252–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Styrud J, Eriksson S, Nilsson I, Ahlberg G, Haapareinri S, Neovius G, Rex L, Badume I, Granstrom L (2006) Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 30:1033–1037CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vargas HI, Averbook A, Stamos MJ (1994) Appendiceal mass: conservative therapy followed by interval laparoscopic appendectomy. Am Surg 60:753–758PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zerem E, Salkic N, Imamovic G, Terzic I (2007) Comparison of therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics versus antibiotics alone in the treatment of periappendiceal abscess: is appendectomy always necessary after perforation of appendix? Surg Endosc 21:461–466 (Epub 14 November 2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cobben LP, de Van Otterloo AM, Puylaert JB (2000) Spontaneously resolving appendicitis. Radiology 215:349–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rice BH (1964) Conservative nonsurgical management of appendicitis. Mil Med 129:903–920PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eriksson S, Granstrom L (1995) Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 82:166–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eriksson S, Tisell A, Granstrom L (1995) Ultrasonic findings after conservative treatment of acute appendicitis and open appendectomy. Acta Radiol 36:173–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kirkpatrick AW, Nicolaou S, Campbell MR, Sargsyan AE, Dulchavsky SA, Melton S, Beck G, Dawson DL, Billica RD, Johnston SL, Hamilton DR (2002) Percutaneous aspiration of fluid for management of peritonitis in space. Aviat Space Environ Med 73:925–930PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bowers WF, Hughes CW, Bonilla KB (1958) The treatment of acute appendicitis under suboptimal conditions. US Armed Forces Med J 9:1545–1557Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rogozov LI (1964) Self operation. Soviet Antarctic Expedition Information Bulletin 4:223–224. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fox JC, Solley M, Anderson CL, Zlidenny A, Lahham S, Maasumi K (2008) Prospective evaluation of emergency physician performed bedside ultrasound to detect acute appendicitis. Eur J Emerg Med 15:80–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Melnick ER, Melnick JR, Nelson BP (2010) Pelvic ultrasound in acute appendicitis. J Emerg Med 38(2):240–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dulchavsky SA, Schwarz KL, Kirkpatrick AW, Billica RD, Williams DR, Diebel LN, Campbell MR, Sargysan AE, Hamilton DR (2001) Prospective evaluation of thoracic ultrasound in the detection of pneumothorax. J Trauma 50:201–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hart R, Campbell MR (2002) Digital radiography in space. Aviat Space Environ Med 73:601–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sargasyn AE, Hamilton DR, Jones JA, Melton S, Whitson PA, Kirkpatrick AW, Martin D, Dulchavsky SA (2005) FAST at MACH 20: clinical ultrasound aboard the International Space Station. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care 58:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Norfleet W (2000) Anesthetic concerns of spaceflight. Anesthesiology 92:1219–1222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Otto
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Comtois
    • 2
  • Ashot Sargsyan
    • 3
  • Alexandria Dulchavsky
    • 4
  • Ilan Rubinfeld
    • 4
  • Scott Dulchavsky
    • 4
  1. 1.Emergency MedicineUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Canadian Space AgencySt HubertCanada
  3. 3.Wyle LaboratoriesHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryHenry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations