Surgeon satisfaction and outcomes of tele-proctoring for robotic gynecologic surgery.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Surgeon satisfaction and outcomes of tele-proctoring for robotic gynecologic surgery.
Autorzy:: Artsen AM; Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Womens Research Institute, 204 Craft Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. .
S Burkett L; Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Womens Research Institute, 204 Craft Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Duvvuri U; Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Bonidie M; Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Womens Research Institute, 204 Craft Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Źródło:: Journal of robotic surgery [J Robot Surg] 2022 Jun; Vol. 16 (3), pp. 563-568. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jul 16.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Original Publication: London : Springer
MeSH Terms:: COVID-19*/epidemiology
Robotic Surgical Procedures*/methods
Surgeons*
Female ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Personal Satisfaction ; Pilot Projects
References:: Rutkow I (2013) The education, training, and specialization of surgeons: turn-of-the-century America and its postgraduate medical schools. Ann Surg 258:1130–1136. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a6f6a6. (PMID: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a6f6a623989055)
(2009) ACOG Committee Opinion No 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 114:1156–1158. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c33c72.
Heit M (2014) Surgical proctoring for gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 123:349–352. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000076. (PMID: 10.1097/AOG.000000000000007624402592)
(2015) Committee opinion no. 628: robotic surgery in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 125:760–767. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000461761.47981.07.
Committee on Patient Safety and Quality Improvement (2016) Committee opinion no. 674: guiding principles for privileging of innovative procedures in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 128:e85–e88. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001646. (PMID: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001646)
Heeringa J, Jones DJ, Machta RM, Furukawa MF, Miller D, and Rich EC. Quality A for HR and Snapshot of U.S. Health Systems. Compendium of U.S. Health Systems Data Highlight No 1:.
Rosser JC, Gabriel N, Herman B, Murayama M (2001) Telementoring and teleproctoring. World J Surg 25:1438–1448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-001-0129-x. (PMID: 10.1007/s00268-001-0129-x11760748)
McCullough MC, Kulber L, Sammons P et al (2018) Google glass for remote surgical tele-proctoring in low- and middle-income countries: a feasibility study from Mozambique. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6:e1999. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001999. (PMID: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001999306561046326622)
Datta N, MacQueen IT, Schroeder AD et al (2015) Wearable technology for global surgical teleproctoring. J Surg Educ 72:1290–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.07.004. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.07.00426276303)
Gambadauro P, Torrejón R (2013) The “tele” factor in surgery today and tomorrow: implications for surgical training and education. Surg Today 43:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0267-9. (PMID: 10.1007/s00595-012-0267-922836545)
Murugesu S, Galazis N, Jones BP et al (2020) Evaluating the use of telemedicine in gynaecological practice: a systematic review. BMJ Open 10:e039457. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039457. (PMID: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039457332933067722813)
Hung AJ, Chen J, Shah A, Gill IS (2018) Telementoring and telesurgery for minimally invasive procedures. J Urol 199:355–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.06.082. (PMID: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.06.08228655529)
Seagull FJ, Rooney DM (2014) Filling a void: developing a standard subjective assessment tool for surgical simulation through focused review of current practices. Surgery 156:718–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.04.048. (PMID: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.04.04825175506)
Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC et al (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187:247–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.032. (PMID: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.03222099993)
Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL et al (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.042. (PMID: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.04219625032)
El-Sabawi B, Magee W (2016) The evolution of surgical telementoring: current applications and future directions. Ann Transl Med 4:391. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.10.04. (PMID: 10.21037/atm.2016.10.04278679435107399)
Sebajang H, Trudeau P, Dougall A et al (2006) The role of telementoring and telerobotic assistance in the provision of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in rural areas. Surg Endosc 20:1389–1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0260-0. (PMID: 10.1007/s00464-005-0260-016823656)
Bilgic E, Turkdogan S, Watanabe Y et al (2017) Effectiveness of telementoring in surgery compared with on-site mentoring: a systematic review. Surg Innov 24:379–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350617708725. (PMID: 10.1177/155335061770872528494684)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) Considerations for Travelers—Coronavirus in the US | CDC. In: COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/travel-in-the-us.html . Accessed 9 June 2020.
Whitten P, Mair F (2004) Telesurgery versus telemedicine in surgery–an overview. Surg Technol Int 12:68–72. (PMID: 15455311)
Mendez I, Hill R, Clarke D et al (2005) Robotic long-distance telementoring in neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 56:434–440. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000153928.51881.27. (PMID: 10.1227/01.neu.0000153928.51881.2715730568)
Ereso AQ, Garcia P, Tseng E et al (2009) Usability of robotic platforms for remote surgical teleproctoring. Telemed J E Health 15:445–453. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2008.0164. (PMID: 10.1089/tmj.2008.016419548825)
Grant Information:: K12 HD043441 United States HD NICHD NIH HHS; K12HD043441 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Robotic surgery; Surgical innovation; Tele-mentoring; Tele-proctoring
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20210717 Date Completed: 20220530 Latest Revision: 20220530
Update Code:: 20240628
PubMed Central ID:: PMC8284683
DOI:: 10.1007/s11701-021-01280-x
PMID:: 34272656
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Surgical proctoring requires increasing resources in growing healthcare systems. In addition, travel has become less safe in the era of COVID-19. This study demonstrates surgeon satisfaction and safety with tele-proctoring in robotic gynecologic surgery. This pilot study assesses surgeon satisfaction and operative outcomes with a novel operative tele-proctoring system with a continuous two-way video-audio feed that allows the off-site surgeon to see the operating room, surgical field, and hands of the robotic surgeon. After thorough system testing, two experienced surgeons underwent tele-proctoring for hospital credentialing, completing 7 total cases. Each completed pre- and post-surveys developed from the Michigan Standard Simulation Experience Scale. Surgical characteristics were compared between tele-proctored cases and 59 historical cases proctored in-person over the last 8 years. Surgeons reported unanimous high satisfaction with tele-proctoring (5 ± 0). There were no major technologic issues. Five of the tele-proctored cases and 35 of controls were hysterectomies. Mean age was 48.2 ± 1.4 years, mean BMI was 29.6 ± 0.9 kg/m 2 , and mean uterine weight was 152 ± 112.3 g. Two-thirds had prior abdominal surgery (P > 0.1). Tele-proctored hysterectomies were 58 ± 6.5 min shorter than controls (P = 0.001). There were no differences in EBL or complication rates (P > 0.1). Tele-proctoring resulted in high surgeon satisfaction rates with no difference in EBL or complications. Tele-mentoring is a natural extension of tele-proctoring that could provide advanced surgical expertise far beyond where we can physically reach.
(© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Informacja