Current Urology Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 22–28 | Cite as

Telementoring and Telerobotics in Urological Surgery



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.


Telemedicine Surgery Robotics Mentoring 



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


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

  1. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dasgupta P: Robotics in urology. BJU Int 2001, 88:300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW, et al.: Telementoring of laparoscopic procedures: initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 1996, 10:107–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Challacombe B, Kandaswamy R, Dasgupta P, Mamode N: Telementoring facilitates independent hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc 2005, 37:613–616.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 10.
    Schulam PG, Docimo SG, Saleh W, et al.: Telesurgical mentoring. Initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 1997, 11:1001–1005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee BR, Caddedu JA, Janetschek G, et al.: International surgical telementoring: our initial experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 1998, 50:41–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rovetta A, Sala R: Execution of robot assisted biopsies within the clinical context. J Image Guid Surg 1995, 1:280–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen JF, Hill JW: Advanced telepresence surgery system development. Stud Health Technol Inform 1996, 29:107–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Satava RM: Virtual reality and telepresence for military medicine. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1997, 26:118–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Challacombe BJ, Kavoussi LR, Dasgupta P: Trans-oceanic telerobotic surgery. BJU Int 2003, 92:678–680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, et al.: Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 2001, 413:379–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Satava RM: Future trends in the design and application of surgical robots. Semin Laparosc Surg 2004, 11:129–135.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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).Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sereno S, Mutter D, Dallemagne B, et al.: Telementoring for minimally invasive surgical training by wireless robot. Surg Innov 2007, 14:184–191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Azerad A: Robot successfully completes unassisted heart surgery. Digital Lifestyle Magazine. Available at Accessed September 2009.
  35. 35.
    van Wynsberghe A, Gastmans C: Telesurgery: an ethical appraisal. J Med Ethics 2008, 34:e22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Queen Elizabeth HospitalWoolwichEngland

Personalised recommendations