Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

  1. Magos A, Gambadauro P. Desktop search engines: a modern way to hand search in full text. Lancet. 2005;366(9481):203–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gambadauro P, Magos A. Office 2.0: a web 2.0 tool for international collaborative research. Lancet. 2008;371(9627):1837–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosser JC, Gabriel N, Herman B, Murayama M. Telementoring and Teleproctoring. Worl J Surg. 2001;25:1438–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Angood PB. Telemedicine, the Internet, and World Wide Web: overview, current status, and relevance to surgeons. World J Surg. 2001;25:1449–57.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. Guidelines for the surgical practice of telemedicine. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:975–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Go PMNYH, Payne JH, Satava RM, Rosser JC. Teleconferencing bridges two oceans and shrinks the surgical world. Surg Endosc. 1996;10:105–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schulam PG, Docimo SG, Saleh W, Breitenbach C, Moore RG, Kavoussi L. Telesurgical mentoring. Initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc. 1997;11:1001–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gambadauro P, Magos A. Digital video technology and surgical training. Eur Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;3:31–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N. Assessing operative skills. BMJ. 1999;318:887–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moorthy K, Muntz Y, Sarker SK, Darzi A. Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ. 2003;327:1032–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gambadauro P, Magos A. Digital video recordings for training, assessment, and revalidation of surgical skills. Surg Technol Int. 2010;20:36–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheah WK, Lee B, Lenzi JE, Goh PM. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy between two countries. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(11):1085.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M, et al. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature. 2001;413:379–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lehr EJ, Rodriguez E, Chitwood WR. Robotic cardiac surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24(1):77–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Haidegger T, Sándor J, Benyó Z. Surgery in space: the future of robotic telesurgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):681–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brockbank W. Old anatomical theatres and what took place therein. Med Hist. 1968;12(4):371–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ward JP, Gordon J, Field MJ, Lehmann HP. Communication and information technology in medical education. Lancet. 2001;10(357):792–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Alvarez RS, Rodríguez JL, Alonso AC. Teaching surgery: new times, new methods. Cir Esp 2012;90:17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wiecha J, Barrie N. Collaborative online learning: a new approach to distance CME. Acad Med. 2002;77(9):928–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Klock C, Gomes Rde P. Web conferencing systems: skype and MSN in telepathology. Diagn Pathol. 2008;3:S13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brahams D. The medicolegal implications of teleconsulting in the UK. J Telemed Telecare. 1995;1(4):196–201.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. DeBakey ME. Telemedicine has now come of age. Telemed J. 1995;1(1):3–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Grech V, Muscat HA, Cassar B. Videoconferencing: live procedures during conferences—practical problems and solutions. J Vis Commun Med. 2009;32:53–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hollick EJ, Allan BD. Live surgery: national survey of United Kingdom ophthalmologists. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(6):1029–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Holland AJ, Soundappan SV, Oldmeadow W. Videoconferencing surgical tutorials: bridging the gap. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78(4):297–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Gul YA, Wan AC, Darzi A. Undergraduate surgical teaching utilizing telemedicine. Med Educ. 1999;33(8):596–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Reproduction, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Uppsala University Hospital, 751 85, Uppsala, Sweden

    Pietro Gambadauro

  2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Breast Pathology, Virgen del Rocío University Hospital, University of Seville, 41013, Seville, Spain

    Rafael Torrejón

Authors
  1. Pietro Gambadauro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafael Torrejón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pietro Gambadauro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gambadauro, P., Torrejón, R. The “tele” factor in surgery today and tomorrow: implications for surgical training and education. Surg Today 43, 115–122 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0267-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0267-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation