Usability of robotic platforms for remote surgical teleproctoring.

Military field hospitals and rural medical centers may lack surgical subspecialists. Robotic technology can enable proctoring of remotely located general surgeons by subspecialists. Our objective compared three proctoring platforms: (1) 6-degree-of-freedom (DOF) computer input devices controlling a camera and laser pointer mounted on robotic arms, (2) a computer mouse controlling a pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) camera and robotic laser scanner, and (3) a computer pen/tablet controlling a PTZ-camera and robotic laser scanner. Our hypothesis was that a pen/tablet or mouse platform would be superior to the 6-DOF-input device platform. Five surgeons used each platform by simulating the creation of operative incisions. Qualitative (instrument handling, time, motion, spatial awareness) and quantitative performance (accuracy, speed) was assessed on a five-point scale. Each surgeon completed a satisfaction survey. Both mouse and pen/tablet had higher mean performance scores than the 6-DOF-input device in all quantitative (6-DOF = 1.7 +/- 0.8, mouse = 4.3 +/- 0.2, pen = 4.1 +/- 0.6; p < 0.001) and qualitative measures (6-DOF = 1.7 +/- 0.2, mouse = 4.8 +/- 0.0, pen = 4.6 +/- 0.1; p < 0.001). Handling, motion, and instrument awareness were superior with the mouse and pen/tablet versus 6-DOF-input devices (p < 0.0001). Speed and accuracy were also superior using the mouse or pen/tablet versus 6-DOF-input devices (p < 0.0001). Surgeons completed tasks faster using the mouse versus pen/tablet (p = 0.02). Satisfaction surveys revealed a preference for the mouse. This study demonstrates the superiority of a mouse or pen/tablet controlling a PTZ-camera and robotic laser scanner for remote surgical teleproctoring versus 6-DOF-input devices controlling a camera and laser pointer. Either a mouse or pen/tablet platform allows subspecialists to proctor remotely located surgeons.

[1]  M. Anvari,et al.  The role of telementoring and telerobotic assistance in the provision of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in rural areas , 2006, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[2]  Ivar M Mendez,et al.  Robotic Long-distance Telementoring in Neurosurgery , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[3]  J. Stevermer,et al.  A survey of general surgeons in rural Missouri: potential for rapid decrease in work force. , 2001, The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association.

[4]  J. Landercasper,et al.  Spectrum of general surgery in rural America. , 1997, Archives of surgery.

[5]  B Tulloh,et al.  Caseload in rural general surgical practice and implications for training , 2001, ANZ journal of surgery.

[6]  G. Ballantyne.  Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[7]  C. Boanca,et al.  Telementoring versus on-site mentoring in virtual reality-based surgical training , 2005, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[8]  Richard M Satava,et al.  Robotics in colorectal surgery: telemonitoring and telerobotics. , 2006, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[9]  Dan Stoianovici,et al.  Technology Insight: telementoring and telesurgery in urology , 2006, Nature Clinical Practice Urology.

[10]  Albert G Crawford,et al.  Cumulative operative experience is decreasing during general surgery residency: a worrisome trend for surgical trainees? , 2008, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[11]  Melina C Vassiliou,et al.  A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. , 2005, American journal of surgery.

[12]  J. Doyle,et al.  A universal global rating scale for the evaluation of technical skills in the operating room. , 2007, American journal of surgery.

[13]  Li-Ming Su,et al.  The RoboConsultant: telementoring and remote presence in the operating room during minimally invasive urologic surgeries using a novel mobile robotic interface. , 2007, Urology.