Surgery Today

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 115–122 | Cite as

The “tele” factor in surgery today and tomorrow: implications for surgical training and education

Review Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

New technological developments in the field of telecommunications have allowed a wide range of potentially novel surgical applications. The introduction of the World Wide Web in 1991 has been followed by a steep rise of the relevance of telemedicine, as it is witnessed in the latest scientific literature. There has been a consistent, positive trend in publications dealing, respectively, with telemedicine and the Internet. This article reviews telemedicine and other surgery-related innovations that benefit from telecommunication advances, and presents data from a quantitative bibliographic analysis. A number of applications, such as telementoring, teleproctoring and robotic telesurgery are described and their huge potentials are discussed. The integration between surgery and telecommunications could constitute one of the major achievements of modern medicine, and its safe integration into clinical practice should be a priority for modern surgeons.

Keywords

Telemedicine Internet Telementoring Telesurgery and robotic surgery Surgical training 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

Pietro Gambadauro and Rafael Torrejón have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Magos A, Gambadauro P. Desktop search engines: a modern way to hand search in full text. Lancet. 2005;366(9481):203–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gambadauro P, Magos A. Office 2.0: a web 2.0 tool for international collaborative research. Lancet. 2008;371(9627):1837–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosser JC, Wood M, Payne JH, Fullum TM, Lisehora GB, Rosser LE, Barcia PJ, Salvagi RS. Telementoring: a practical option in surgical training. Surg Endosc. 1997;11:852–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosser JC, Gabriel N, Herman B, Murayama M. Telementoring and Teleproctoring. Worl J Surg. 2001;25:1438–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Angood PB. Telemedicine, the Internet, and World Wide Web: overview, current status, and relevance to surgeons. World J Surg. 2001;25:1449–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. Guidelines for the surgical practice of telemedicine. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:975–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Go PMNYH, Payne JH, Satava RM, Rosser JC. Teleconferencing bridges two oceans and shrinks the surgical world. Surg Endosc. 1996;10:105–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW, Docimo SG, Kavoussi LR. Telementoring of laparoscopic procedures: initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc. 1996;10(2):107–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marescaux J, Mutter D, Soler L, Vix M, Leroy J. The virtual university applied to telesurgery: from tele-education to tele-manipulation. Bull Acad Natl Med. 1999;183:509–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosser JC, Wood M, Payne JH, Fullum TM, Lisehora GB, Rosser LE, et al. Telementoring. A practical option in surgical training. Surg Endosc. 1997;11(8):852–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulam PG, Docimo SG, Saleh W, Breitenbach C, Moore RG, Kavoussi L. Telesurgical mentoring. Initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc. 1997;11:1001–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee BR, Bishoff JT, Janetschek G, Bunyaratevej P, Kamolpronwijit W, Cadeddu JA, et al. A novel method of surgical instruction: international telementoring. World J Urol. 1998;16(6):367–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cubano M, Poulose BK, Salamini MA, Stewart R, Antosek LE, Lentz R, et al. Long distance telementoring. A novel tool for laparoscopy aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:673–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee BR, Png DJ, Liew L, Fabrizio M, Li MK, Jarrett JW, et al. Laparoscopic telesurgery between the United States and Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2000;29:665–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bauer JJ, Lee BR, Bishoff JT, Janetschek G, Bunyaratevej P, Kamolpronwijit W, et al. International surgical telementoring using a robotic arm: our experience. Telemed J. 2000;6:25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Micali S, Virgili G, Vannozzi E, Grassi N, Jarrett TW, Bauer JJ, et al. Feasibility of telementoring between Baltimore (USA) and Rome (Italy): the first five cases. J Endourol. 2000;14:493–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gambadauro P, Magos A. Digital video technology and surgical training. Eur Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;3:31–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hahm JS, Lee HL, Choi HS, Shimizu S. Telemedicine system using a high-speed network: past, present, and future. Gut Liver. 2009;3(4):247–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gambadauro P, Magos A. NEST (network enhanced surgical training): a PC-based system for telementoring in gynaecological surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;139(2):222–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Notte D, Mimouna R, Cadiere GB, Bruyns, Degueldre M, Mols P. Human factor’s in telemedicine: training surgeons by telementoring. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2009;5619:1033–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gambadauro P, Chapman L, Makris A, Papalampros P, Polyzos D, Papadopoulos N, et al. Simulating telementoring using NEST (network enhanced surgical training) in an endoscopic skills laboratory. Gynecol Surg. 2006;3:S41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N. Assessing operative skills. BMJ. 1999;318:887–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sarker SK, Chang A, Vincent C, Darzi AW. Development of assessing generic and specific technical skills in laparoscopic surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;191:238–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moorthy K, Muntz Y, Sarker SK, Darzi A. Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ. 2003;327:1032–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gambadauro P, Magos A. Digital video recordings for training, assessment, and revalidation of surgical skills. Surg Technol Int. 2010;20:36–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cheah WK, Lee B, Lenzi JE, Goh PM. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy between two countries. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(11):1085.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M, et al. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature. 2001;413:379–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pugin F, Bucher P, Morel P. History of robotic surgery: from AESOP® and ZEUS® to da Vinci®. J Visc Surg. 2011;148:e3–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yim GW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim YT. Role of robot-assisted surgery in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(1):173–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lehr EJ, Rodriguez E, Chitwood WR. Robotic cardiac surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24(1):77–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Dam P, Hauspy J, Verkinderen L, Trinh XB, van Dam PJ, Van Looy L, et al. Are costs of robot-assisted surgery warranted for gynecological procedures? Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011;2011:973830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haidegger T, Sándor J, Benyó Z. Surgery in space: the future of robotic telesurgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):681–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Suzuki S, Suzuki N, Hattori A, Hayashibe M, Konishi K, Kakeji Y, et al. Tele-surgery simulation with a patient organ model for robotic surgery training. Int J Med Robot. 2005;1(4):80–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suzuki S, Suzuki N, Hayashibe M, Hattori A, Konishi K, Kakeji Y, et al. Tele-surgical simulation system for training in the use of da Vinci surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2005;111:543–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nguan C, Miller B, Patel R, Luke PP, Schlachta CM. Pre-clinical remote telesurgery trial of a da Vinci telesurgery prototype. Int J Med Robot. 2008;4(4):304–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sterbis JR, Hanly EJ, Herman BC, Marohn MR, Broderick TJ, Shih SP, et al. Transcontinental telesurgical nephrectomy using the da Vinci robot in a porcine model. Urology. 2008;71(5):971–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brockbank W. Old anatomical theatres and what took place therein. Med Hist. 1968;12(4):371–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ward JP, Gordon J, Field MJ, Lehmann HP. Communication and information technology in medical education. Lancet. 2001;10(357):792–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Khan N, Coppola W, Rayne T, Epstein O. Medical student access to multimedia devices: most have it, some don’t and what’s next? Inform Health Soc Care. 2009;34(2):100–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gormley GJ, Collins K, Boohan M, Bickle IC, Stevenson M. Is there a place for e-learning in clinical skills? A survey of undergraduate medical students’ experiences and attitudes. Med Teach. 2009;31(1):e6–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Alvarez RS, Rodríguez JL, Alonso AC. Teaching surgery: new times, new methods. Cir Esp 2012;90:17–23.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kleinpell R, Ely EW, Williams G, Liolios A, Ward N, Tisherman SA. Web-based resources for critical care education. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(3):541–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Davies BS, Rafique J, Vincent TR, Fairclough J, Packer MH, Vincent R, et al. Mobile Medical Education (MoMEd)—how mobile information resources contribute to learning for undergraduate clinical students: a mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12(1):1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wiecha J, Barrie N. Collaborative online learning: a new approach to distance CME. Acad Med. 2002;77(9):928–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Butterworth K, Hayes B, Zimmerman M. Remote and rural: do mentors enhance the value of distance learning continuing medical education? Educ Health (Abingdon). 2011;24(3):539.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Casebeer L, Allison J, Spettell CM. Designing tailored Web-based instruction to improve practicing physicians’ chlamydial screening rates. Acad Med. 2002;77(9):929.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sargeant J, Curran V, Allen M, Jarvis-Selinger S, Ho K. Facilitating interpersonal interaction and learning online: linking theory and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(2):128–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Pawson R. Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ. 2010;2(10):12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Klock C, Gomes Rde P. Web conferencing systems: skype and MSN in telepathology. Diagn Pathol. 2008;3:S13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Genzen JR, for the Education Committee of the Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists. Pathology consultation on reporting of critical values. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(4):505–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rocha R, Vassallo J, Soares F, Miller K, Gobbi H. Digital slides: present status of a tool for consultation, teaching, and quality control in pathology. Pathol Res Pract. 2009;205(11):735–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ewers R, Schicho K, Wagner A, Undt G, Seemann R, Figl M, et al. Seven years of clinical experience with teleconsultation in craniomaxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(10):1447–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Narenthiranathan NR, Adnan JS, Haspani MS. Tailoring teleconsultation to meet the current needs of neurosurgical services: a multimodality oriented neurosurgical consultation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;161:112–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Seemann R, Guevara G, Undt G, Ewers R, Schicho K. Clinical evaluation of tele-endoscopy using UMTS cellphones. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(11):2855–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Eranki V, Munt J, Lim MJ, Atkinson R. Consultation of orthopaedics cases using multimedia messaging services. Open Orthop J. 2010;23(4):164–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zetterman CV, Sweitzer BJ, Webb B, Barak-Bernhagen MA, Boedeker BH. Validation of a virtual preoperative evaluation clinic: a pilot study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:737–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gambadauro P, Magos A. Surgical videos for accident analysis, performance improvement and complication prevention: time for a surgical black box? Surg Innov. 2012;19:76–80. doi: 10.1177/1553350611415424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Brahams D. The medicolegal implications of teleconsulting in the UK. J Telemed Telecare. 1995;1(4):196–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    DeBakey ME. Telemedicine has now come of age. Telemed J. 1995;1(1):3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shimizu S, Han HS, Okamura K, Yamaguchi K, Tanaka M. Live demonstration of surgery across international borders with uncompressed high-definition quality. HPB (Oxford). 2007;9(5):398–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Grech V, Muscat HA, Cassar B. Videoconferencing: live procedures during conferences—practical problems and solutions. J Vis Commun Med. 2009;32:53–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hollick EJ, Allan BD. Live surgery: national survey of United Kingdom ophthalmologists. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(6):1029–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Augestad KM, Lindsetmo RO. Overcoming distance: video-conferencing as a clinical and educational tool among surgeons. World J Surg. 2009;33(7):1356–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Holland AJ, Soundappan SV, Oldmeadow W. Videoconferencing surgical tutorials: bridging the gap. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78(4):297–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gul YA, Wan AC, Darzi A. Undergraduate surgical teaching utilizing telemedicine. Med Educ. 1999;33(8):596–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    McIntyre TP, Monahan TS, Villegas L, Doyle J, Jones DB. Teleconferencing surgery enhances effective communication and enriches medical education. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2008;18(1):45–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Reproduction, Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUppsala University HospitalUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Breast Pathology, Virgen del Rocío University HospitalUniversity of SevilleSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations