Ensuring communication redundancy and establishing a telementoring system for robotic telesurgery using multiple communication lines.
Multiple communication lines
Robotic telesurgery
Telementoring system
Journal
Journal of robotic surgery
ISSN: 1863-2491
Titre abrégé: J Robot Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300401
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jan 2024
11 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
05
10
2023
accepted:
01
12
2023
medline:
11
1
2024
pubmed:
11
1
2024
entrez:
11
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Assuring communication redundancy during the interruption and establishing appropriate teaching environments for local surgeons are essential to making robotic telesurgery mainstream. This study analyzes robotic telesurgery with telementoring using standard domestic telecommunication carriers. Can multiple carriers guarantee redundancy with interruptions? Three commercial optical fiber lines connected Hirosaki University and Mutsu General Hospitals, 150 km apart. Using Riverfield, Inc. equipment, Hirosaki had a cockpit, while both Mutsu used both a cockpit and a surgeon's console. Experts provided telementoring evaluating 14 trainees, using objective indices for operation time and errors. Subjective questionnaires addressed image quality and surgical operability. Eighteen participants performed telesurgery using combined lines from two/three telecommunication carriers. Manipulation: over 30 min, lines were cut and restored every three minutes per task. Subjects were to press a switch when noticing image quality or operability changes. Mean time to task completion was 1510 (1186-1960) seconds: local surgeons alone and 1600 (1152-2296) seconds for those under remote instructor supervision, including expert intervention time. There was no significant difference (p = 0.86). The mean error count was 0.92 (0-3) for local surgeons and 0.42 (0-2) with remote instructors. Image quality and operability questionnaires found no significant differences. Results communication companies A, B, and C: the A/B combination incurred 0.17 (0-1) presses of the environment change switch, B/C had 0, and C/A received 0.67 (0-3), showing no significant difference among provider combinations. Combining multiple communication lines guarantees communication redundancy and enables robotic telementoring with enhanced communication security.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38206522
doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01792-8
pii: 10.1007/s11701-023-01792-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Hakamada K, Mori M (2021) The changing surgical scene: From the days of Billroth to the upcoming future of artificial intelligence and telerobotic surgery. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 5(3):268–269
doi: 10.1002/ags3.12466
pubmed: 34095715
pmcid: 8164454
Xia SB, Lu QS (2021) Development status of telesurgery robotic system. Chin J Traumatol 24(3):144–147
doi: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.03.001
pubmed: 33744069
pmcid: 8173578
Tian W, Fan M, Zeng C, Liu Y, He D, Zhang Q (2020) Telerobotic Spinal Surgery Based on 5G Network: The First 12 Cases. Neurospine 17(1):114–120
doi: 10.14245/ns.1938454.227
pubmed: 32252160
pmcid: 7136105
Morohashi H, Hakamada K, Kanno T, Kawashima K, Akasaka H, Ebihara Y et al (2022) Social implementation of a remote surgery system in Japan: a field experiment using a newly developed surgical robot via a commercial network. Surg Today 52(4):705–714
doi: 10.1007/s00595-021-02384-5
pubmed: 34668052
Akasaka H, Hakamada K, Morohashi H, Kanno T, Kawashima K, Ebihara Y et al (2022) Impact of the suboptimal communication network environment on telerobotic surgery performance and surgeon fatigue. PLoS One 17(6):e0270039
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270039
pubmed: 35709190
pmcid: 9202925
Ebihara Y, Hirano S, Takano H, Kanno T, Kawashima K, Morohashi H et al (2023) Technical evaluation of robotic tele-cholecystectomy: a randomized single-blind controlled pilot study. J Robot Surg. 17:1–7
doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01522-0
Oki E, Ota M, Nakanoko T, Tanaka Y, Toyota S, Hu Q et al (2023) Telesurgery and telesurgical support using a double-surgeon cockpit system allowing manipulation from two locations. Surg Endosc. 37:1–8
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10061-6
Morohashi H, Hakamada K, Kanno T, Tadano K, Kawashima K, Takahashi Y et al (2023) Construction of redundant communications to enhance safety against communication interruptions during robotic remote surgery. Sci Rep 13:10831
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37730-9
pubmed: 37402741
pmcid: 10319872
Ebihara Y, Oki E, Hirano S, Takano H, Ota M, Morohashi H et al (2022) Tele-assessment of bandwidth limitation for remote robotics surgery. Surg Today 52(11):1653–1659
doi: 10.1007/s00595-022-02497-5
pubmed: 35546642
pmcid: 9095415
Takahashi Y, Hakamada K, Morohashi H, Akasaka H, Ebihara Y, Oki E et al (2022) Verification of delay time and image compression thresholds for telesurgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 6:255
Takahashi Y, Hakamada K, Morohashi H, Akasaka H, Ebihara Y, Oki E et al (2023) Reappraisal of telesurgery in the era of high-speed, high-bandwidth, secure communications: Evaluation of surgical performance in local and remote environments. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 7(1):167–174
doi: 10.1002/ags3.12611
pubmed: 36643359
Tadano K, Kawashima K, Kojima K, Tanaka N (2010) Development of a pneumatic surgical manipulator IBIS IV. J Robot Mechatronics 22:179–188
Brooke J (1996) SUS : A Quick and Dirty Usability Scale. Usability Eval in Ind. 189:189–94
Sarker SK, Chang A, Vincent C, Darzi AW (2005) Technical skills errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy by expert surgeons. Surg Endosc 19(6):832–835
doi: 10.1007/s00464-004-9174-5
pubmed: 15868251
Raison N, Khan MS, Challacombe B (2015) Telemedicine in Surgery: What are the Opportunities and Hurdles to Realising the Potential? Curr Urol Rep 16(7):43
doi: 10.1007/s11934-015-0522-x
pubmed: 26025497
Anvari M (2007) Telesurgery: remote knowledge translation in clinical surgery. World J Surg 31(8):1545–1550
doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9076-5
pubmed: 17534550
Choi PJ, Oskouian RJ, Tubbs RS (2018) Telesurgery: Past, Present, and Future. Cureus 10(5):e2716
pubmed: 30079282
pmcid: 6067812
Feng Q, Yuan W, Li T, Tang B, Jia B, Zhou Y et al (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 7(11):991–1004
doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00248-5
pubmed: 36087608
Cuk P, Kjær MD, Mogensen CB, Nielsen MF, Pedersen AK, Ellebæk MB (2022) Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 36(1):32–46
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7
pubmed: 34724576
Phan K, Kahlaee HR, Kim SH, Toh JWT (2019) Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies. Tech Coloproctol 23(3):221–30
doi: 10.1007/s10151-018-1920-0
pubmed: 30623315
Satava RM (1999) Emerging technologies for surgery in the 21st century. Arch Surg 134(11):1197–1202
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.134.11.1197
pubmed: 10555633
Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M et al (2001) Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 413(6854):379–380
doi: 10.1038/35096636
pubmed: 11574874
Nguan C, Miller B, Patel R, Luke PP, Schlachta CM (2008) Pre-clinical remote telesurgery trial of a da Vinci telesurgery prototype. Int J Med Robot 4(4):304–309
doi: 10.1002/rcs.210
pubmed: 18803341
Sterbis JR, Hanly EJ, Herman BC, Marohn MR, Broderick TJ, Shih SP et al (2008) Transcontinental telesurgical nephrectomy using the da Vinci robot in a porcine model. Urology 71(5):971–973
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.027
pubmed: 18295861
Kaneko N, Ito T, Katsuta H, Watanabe T, Abe H, Onishi R (2022) Applying and Evaluating Multipath Redundant Communication Technology for WebRTC-based Video Streaming. IPSJ Transactions on Digital Practice 3(3):21–31