Literature DB >> 24671353

Determination of the latency effects on surgical performance and the acceptable latency levels in telesurgery using the dV-Trainer(®) simulator.

Song Xu1, Manuela Perez, Kun Yang, Cyril Perrenot, Jacques Felblinger, Jacques Hubert.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The primary limitation of telesurgery is the communication latency. Accurate and detailed data are lacking to reveal the latency effects on surgical performance; furthermore, the maximum acceptable latency in telesurgery remains unclear.
METHODS: Sixteen medical students performed an energy dissection exercise and a needle-driving exercise on the robotic simulator dV-Trainer(®), and latencies varying between 0 and 1,000 ms with a 100-ms interval were randomly and blindly presented. Task completion time, instrument motion, and errors were automatically recorded. The difficulty, security, precision, and fluidity of manipulation were self-scored by subjects between 0 and 4 (0 the best, 2 moderate, and 4 the worst).
RESULTS: Task completion time, motion, and errors increased gradually as latency increased. An exponential regression was fit to the mean times and motions (R (2) > 0.98). Subjective scorings of the four items were similar. The mean scores were less than 1 at delays ≤200 ms, then increased from 1 to 2 at 300-700 ms, and finally approached 3 at delays above. In both exercises, latencies ≤300 ms were judged to be safe by all and 400-500 ms were accepted by 66-75 % of subjects. Less than 20 % of subjects accepted delays ≥800 ms.
CONCLUSIONS: The surgical performance deteriorates in an exponential way as the latency increases. The delay impact on instrument manipulation is mild at 0-200 ms, then increases from small to large at 300-700 ms, and finally becomes very large at 800-1,000 ms. Latencies ≤200 ms are ideal for telesurgery; 300 ms is also suitable; 400-500 ms may be acceptable but are already tiring; and 600-700 ms are difficult to deal with and only acceptable for low risk and simple procedures. Surgery is quite difficult at 800-1,000 ms, telementoring would be a better choice in this case.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24671353     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3504-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  16 in total

1.  Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery.

Authors:  J Marescaux; J Leroy; M Gagner; F Rubino; D Mutter; M Vix; S E Butner; M K Smith
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-09-27       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator--role as an assessment tool?

Authors:  Jason Y Lee; Phillip Mucksavage; David C Kerbl; Victor B Huynh; Mohamed Etafy; Elspeth M McDougall
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Long-distance robotic telesurgery: a feasibility study for care in remote environments.

Authors:  R Rayman; K Croome; N Galbraith; R McClure; R Morady; S Peterson; S Smith; V Subotic; A Van Wynsberghe; S Primak
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.547

4.  Robotic pyeloplasty using internet protocol and satellite network-based telesurgery.

Authors:  C Y Nguan; R Morady; C Wang; D Harrison; D Browning; R Rayman; P P W Luke
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.547

5.  Paradigms and experimental set-up for the determination of the acceptable delay in telesurgery.

Authors:  M Perez; F Quiaios; P Andrivon; D Husson; M Dufaut; J Felblinger; J Hubert
Journal:  Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2007

6.  Pre-clinical remote telesurgery trial of a da Vinci telesurgery prototype.

Authors:  Christopher Nguan; Brian Miller; Rajni Patel; Patrick P W Luke; Christopher M Schlachta
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.547

7.  Lapabot: a compact telesurgical robot system for minimally invasive surgery: part II. Telesurgery evaluation.

Authors:  Jun Woo Park; Duck Hee Lee; Young Woo Kim; Byeong Han Lee; Yung Ho Jo
Journal:  Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 2.442

8.  Lapabot: a compact telesurgical robot system for minimally invasive surgery: part I. System description.

Authors:  Jaesoon Choi; Jun Woo Park; Dong Jun Kim; Jungwook Shin; Chan Young Park; Jung Chan Lee; Yung Ho Jo
Journal:  Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol       Date:  2011-07-11       Impact factor: 2.442

Review 9.  Surgery in space: the future of robotic telesurgery.

Authors:  Tamás Haidegger; József Sándor; Zoltán Benyó
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications.

Authors:  Jacques Marescaux; Joel Leroy; Francesco Rubino; Michelle Smith; Michel Vix; Michele Simone; Didier Mutter
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  25 in total

1.  Impact of delay on telesurgical performance: study on the robotic simulator dV-Trainer.

Authors:  Manuela Perez; Song Xu; Sanket Chauhan; Alyssa Tanaka; Khara Simpson; Haidar Abdul-Muhsin; Roger Smith
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Face, content, construct, and concurrent validity of a novel robotic surgery patient-side simulator: the Xperience™ Team Trainer.

Authors:  Song Xu; Manuela Perez; Cyril Perrenot; Nicolas Hubert; Jacques Hubert
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Telemedicine in Surgery: What are the Opportunities and Hurdles to Realising the Potential?

Authors:  Nicholas Raison; Muhammad Shamim Khan; Ben Challacombe
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Robotic liver surgery.

Authors:  Universe Leung; Yuman Fong
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 7.293

5.  Virtually transparent surgical instruments in endoscopic surgery with augmentation of obscured regions.

Authors:  Yuta Koreeda; Yo Kobayashi; Satoshi Ieiri; Yuya Nishio; Kazuya Kawamura; Satoshi Obata; Ryota Souzaki; Makoto Hashizume; Masakatsu G Fujie
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2016-04-02       Impact factor: 2.924

6.  Non-technical skills in robotic surgery and impact on near-miss events: a multi-center study.

Authors:  Anthony Manuguerra; Charles Mazeaud; Nicolas Hubert; Pascal Eschwège; Mathieu Roumiguié; Julia Salleron; Jacques Hubert
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Laparoscopic stereoscopic augmented reality: toward a clinically viable electromagnetic tracking solution.

Authors:  Xinyang Liu; Sukryool Kang; William Plishker; George Zaki; Timothy D Kane; Raj Shekhar
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-10-10

8.  The effect of latency on surgical performance and usability in a three-dimensional heads-up display visualization system for vitreoretinal surgery.

Authors:  David Ta Kim; David Chow
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 9.  The potential impact of 5G telecommunication technology on ophthalmology.

Authors:  Gurfarmaan Singh; Robert Casson; WengOnn Chan
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 3.775

10.  The changing surgical scene: From the days of Billroth to the upcoming future of artificial intelligence and telerobotic surgery.

Authors:  Keinichi Hakamada; Masaki Mori
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2021-05-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.