Peter Legeza1,2, Kalyna Sconzert3, John-Michael Sungur3, Thomas M Loh1, Gavin Britz4, Alan Lumsden1. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Department of Vascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. 3. Corindus, A Siemens Healthineers Company, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery and Neurological Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted endovascular surgery enables us to perform interventions from long distances. This study evaluates the workflow and telecommunication requirements of telerobotic peripheral vascular interventions. METHODS: Ten superficial femoral artery cases were performed by the operator being 44 miles away from the interventional suite, with an endovascular robotic system, on a high-fidelity endovascular simulator. Procedural success, technical success, fluoroscopy time, residual stenosis, contrast dose and network delay were registered. Communication success was assessed after each procedure on a scale from 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (ideal). RESULTS: Procedural success and technical success were 100% and 80%, respectively. The mean residual stenosis, fluoroscopy time and contrast dose were 1.7 ± 5.25%, 6.5 ± 1.8 min and 58.8 ± 14.8 ml. The mean network latency was 38.9 ± 3.5 ms. Median communication success scores were 4.5 (min: 4, max: 5) reported by both the operator and the bedside technician on a scale of 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (ideal). CONCLUSION: With a stable network connection and good communication protocol, a high success rate was achieved for remote robotic-assisted peripheral vascular intervention in an ex vivo model.
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted endovascular surgery enables us to perform interventions from long distances. This study evaluates the workflow and telecommunication requirements of telerobotic peripheral vascular interventions. METHODS: Ten superficial femoral artery cases were performed by the operator being 44 miles away from the interventional suite, with an endovascular robotic system, on a high-fidelity endovascular simulator. Procedural success, technical success, fluoroscopy time, residual stenosis, contrast dose and network delay were registered. Communication success was assessed after each procedure on a scale from 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (ideal). RESULTS: Procedural success and technical success were 100% and 80%, respectively. The mean residual stenosis, fluoroscopy time and contrast dose were 1.7 ± 5.25%, 6.5 ± 1.8 min and 58.8 ± 14.8 ml. The mean network latency was 38.9 ± 3.5 ms. Median communication success scores were 4.5 (min: 4, max: 5) reported by both the operator and the bedside technician on a scale of 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (ideal). CONCLUSION: With a stable network connection and good communication protocol, a high success rate was achieved for remote robotic-assisted peripheral vascular intervention in an ex vivo model.
Authors: Sara Condino; Roberta Piazza; Marina Carbone; Jonathan Bath; Nicola Troisi; Mauro Ferrari; Raffaella Berchiolli Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-08-19