| Literature DB >> 35182363 |
Ya-Qin Zhang1,2,3,4, Hao-Hao Yin1,2,3,4, Tian He1,2,3,4, Le-Hang Guo1,2,3,4,5, Chong-Ke Zhao6,7,8,9,10, Hui-Xiong Xu11,12,13,14,15.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of a 5G-based telerobotic ultrasound (US) system for thyroid examination on a rural island.Entities:
Keywords: 5G network; Tele-ultrasound; Telerobotic; Thyroid Nodule; Thyroid examination
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35182363 PMCID: PMC8857403 DOI: 10.1007/s12020-022-03011-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endocrine ISSN: 1355-008X Impact factor: 3.925
Fig. 1The straight-line distance between the tele-doctor at Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital and the patient at Chongming Second People’s Hospital was 72 kilometers (A). Using a 5G-based telerobotic system, an experienced tele-doctor at Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital manipulated a mock US probe to perform the thyroid scanning for patients at Chongming Island (B, C). In addition, the patients underwent conventional thyroid US examination by an on-site doctor at Chongming Second People’s Hospital as the reference standard (D)
Fig. 2Flowchart of the 5G-based telerobotic US for the thyroid examination. When scanning the thyroid gland, the patient’s head raised and the neck was fully exposed (A–D). When scanning the cervical lymph nodes, the patient’s head was tilted to the other side (E, F)
Patients’ basic information
| Characteristics | No. |
|---|---|
| Patients | 139 |
| Sex | |
| Male | 33 (23.7) |
| Female | 106 (76.3) |
| Mean age, years (range)a | 58.6 ± 12.7 (28–89) |
| Complaint | |
| Thyroid nodules | 48 (34.6) |
| Neck discomfort | 38 (27.3) |
| Health check | 37 (26.6) |
| Follow-up of thyroidectomy | 16 (11.5) |
| Partial thyroidectomy | 4 (2.9) |
| Lobectomy | 10 (7.2) |
| Total thyroidectomy | 2 (1.4) |
— The data in parentheses are percentages
aThe data are expressed as means ± standard deviation, with ranges in parentheses
Comparison of duration and image quality of 5G-based telerobotic US and conventional US for thyroid examinations
| Telerobotic US ( | Conventional US ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average examination time, minutes (range)a | 5.57 ± 2.20 (2–13) | 5.23 ± 2.1 (2–15) | 0.164 | |
| Image quality score (five-point Likert scale) | 1 point | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 2 points | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| 3 points | 9 (6.5) | 10 (7.2) | ||
| 4 points | 33 (23.7) | 28 (20.1) | ||
| 5 points | 97 (69.8) | 101 (72.7) | ||
| Average score | 4.63 ± 0.60 | 4.65 ± 0.61 | 0.102 | |
The data in parentheses are percentages
US Ultrasound
aThe data are expressed as means ± standard deviation, with ranges in parentheses
Fig. 3The longitudinal view of the right lobe of the thyroid gland using 5G-based telerobotic US (A, B) and conventional US (C, D) in a 64-year-old woman with DTD (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis). 5G-based telerobotic US showed a heterogeneous thyroid gland with moderate hypoechoic areas, coarse echotexture on grayscale image (A) and mildly increased vascularity on CDFI image (B). Conventional US revealed a heterogeneous thyroid gland with mild hypoechoic areas, coarse echotexture on grayscale image (C) and moderately increased vascularity on CDFI image (D)
Fig. 4The transversal (A, C) and longitudinal (B, D) grayscale US images of the cervical lymph node in the right neck examined through 5G-based telerobotic US (A, B) and conventional US (C, D) in a 53-year-old woman with the lymphadenopathy. Both telerobotic US and conventional US revealed that a cervical lymph node had a long-to-short-axis ratio < 2, with absent hyperechogenic hilum, cystic change, and microcalcifications
Fig. 5The same nodule in the left lobe of thyroid in a 59-year-old male was detected through 5G-based telerobotic US (A, B) and conventional US (C, D). In the grayscale image, the telerobotic US (A) and conventional US (C) both indicated a solid isoechoic nodule with taller-than-wide shape, smooth margin, and macrocalcifications. However, in the CDFI image, the internal blood flow of the nodule shown by telerobotic US (B) was richer than that shown by conventional US (D)
Laboratory results of patients with DTD (N = 17)
| Laboratory results | Normal range | Mean value (range)a | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FT3, pmol/L | 3.1–6.8 | 5.63 ± 3.53 (3.65–19.07) | |
| Normal | 16 (94.1) | 4.79 ± 0.74 (3.65–6.39) | |
| Increase | 1 (5.9) | / | |
| Decrease | 0 (0.0) | / | |
| FT4, pmol/L | 12–22 | 19.59 ± 12.14 (6.09–61.29) | |
| Normal | 12 (70.6) | 16.60 ± 2.40 (13.84–21.44) | |
| Increase | 3 (17.6) | 38.97 ± 20.04 (22.50–61.29) | |
| Decrease | 2 (11.8) | 8.48 ± 11.38 (6.09–10.86) | |
| TSH, µIU/mL | 0.27–4.2 | 4.39 ± 8.56 (0.01–36.31) | |
| Normal | 10 (58.9) | 2.35 ± 1.07 (0.63–3.96) | |
| Increase | 3 (17.6) | 17.01 ± 16.85 (5.25–36.31) | |
| Decrease | 4 (23.5) | 0.05 ± 0.07 (0.01–0.15) | |
| TPO Ab (+), IU/mL | 12 (70.6) | 0–34 | 229.96 ± 295.57 (5–856) |
| Tg Ab (+), IU/mL | 12 (70.6) | 0–115 | 619.89 ± 866.92 (18.28–2905) |
| TR Ab (+), U/L | 2 (11.8) | 0–1.75 | 8.44 ± 5.49 (4.56–12.32) |
The data in parentheses are percentages
FT3 Free triiodothyronine, FT4 Free thyroxine, TSH Thyrotropin, TPO AbThyroid peroxidase antibody, Tg Ab Thyroglobulin antibody, TR Ab TSH receptor antibody
aThe data are expressed as means ± standard deviation, with ranges in parentheses
Comparison of measurements obtained with 5G-based telerobotic US and conventional US
| Measurement | Telerobotic US | Conventional US | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left lobe, mm | ||||
| Transverse diameter | 15.81 ± 4.28 | 16.07 ± 4.07 | 131 | 0.098 |
| Anteroposterior diameter | 13.63 ± 3.57 | 13.47 ± 3.61 | 131 | 0.177 |
| Right lobe, mm | ||||
| Transverse diameter | 16.11 ± 4.16 | 15.98 ± 4.01 | 132 | 0.147 |
| Anteroposterior diameter | 14.06 ± 3.38 | 13.38 ± 3.35 | 132 | 0.107 |
| Isthmus, mm | 2.79 ± 0.87 | 2.73 ± 0.89 | 128 | 0.057 |
| Same detected cervical lymph nodes, mm | 108 | |||
| Transverse diameter | 15.3 ± 7.53 | 14.6 ± 7.79 | 0.213 | |
| Anteroposterior diameter | 6.1 ± 5.08 | 5.8 ± 4.56 | 0.192 | |
| Same detected thyroid nodules, mm | 122 | |||
| Transverse diameter | 10.06 ± 7.11 | 10.21 ± 7.28 | 0.076 | |
| Anteroposterior diameter | 6.57 ± 4.63 | 6.65 ± 4.51 | 0.229 | |
The data are expressed as means ± standard deviation
US Ultrasound
Consistency in US features and ACR TI-RADS category of the same thyroid nodules detected with 5G-based telerobotic US and conventional US
| US features | Telerobotic US ( | Conventional US ( | ICC | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | 0.855 | 0.792–0.898 | ||
| Cystic or almost completely cystic | 35 (28.7) | 29 (23.8) | ||
| Spongiform | 16 (13.1) | 10 (8.2) | ||
| Mixed cystic and solid | 26 (21.3) | 29 (23.8) | ||
| Solid or almost completely solid | 45 (36.9) | 54 (44.2) | ||
| Echogenicity | 0.863 | 0.804–0.904 | ||
| Anechoic | 35 (28.7) | 28 (23.0) | ||
| Hyperechoic or isoechoic | 57 (46.7) | 53 (43.4) | ||
| Hypoechoic | 29 (23.8) | 39 (32.0) | ||
| Very hypoechoic | 1 (0.8) | 2 (1.6) | ||
| Margin | 0.682 | 0.545–0.778 | ||
| Smooth or ill-defined | 118 (96.7) | 116 (95.1) | ||
| Lobulated or irregular | 4 (3.3) | 5 (4.1) | ||
| Extra-thyroidal extension | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.8) | ||
| Shape | 0.799 | 0.612–0.859 | ||
| Wider-than-tall | 120 (98.4) | 121 (99.2) | ||
| Taller-than-wide | 2 (1.6) | 1 (0.8) | ||
| Echogenic foci | 0.788 | 0.697–0.852 | ||
| None or large comet-tail artifacts | 104 (85.3) | 101 (82.8) | ||
| Macrocalcifications | 10 (8.2) | 13 (10.7) | ||
| Peripheral(rim) calcifications | 2 (1.6) | 2 (1.6) | ||
| Punctate echogenic foci | 6 (4.9) | 6 (4.9) | ||
| ACR TI-RADS | 0.836 | 0.765–0.885 | ||
| TR 1 | 48 (39.3) | 42 (34.4) | ||
| TR 2 | 19 (15.6) | 23 (18.9) | ||
| TR 3 | 20 (16.4) | 18 (14.8) | ||
| TR 4 | 31 (25.4) | 35 (28.6) | ||
| TR 5 | 4 (3.3) | 4 (3.3) |
The data in parentheses are percentages
US Ultrasound, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CI confidence intervals, ACR TI-RADS American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System
Survey responses from patients and tele-doctors regarding the 5G-based telerobotic thyroid US examinations
| Disagree | Somewhat agree | Completely agree | Not sure | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do you feel uncomfortable during the 5G-based telerobotic US examination? | 129 (92.8) | 7 (5.0) | 3 (2.2) | 0 (0.0) |
| 2. Do you have a fear for the robotic arm? | 124 (89.2) | 6 (4.3) | 9 (6.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| 3. Are you satisfied with the duration of the 5G-based telerobotic US? | 7 (5.0) | 73 (52.5) | 58 (41.8) | 1 (0.7) |
| 4. Do you accept 5G-based telerobotic US examination? | 6 (4.3) | 0 (0.0) | 119 (85.6) | 14 (10.1) |
| 5. Are you willing to pay a certain amount of extra money for 5G-based telerobotic US examinations by expert? | 5 (3.6) | 15 (10.8) | 106 (76.3) | 13 (9.3) |
| 1. Do you feel a transmission delay during the 5G-based telerobotic US examination? | 119 (85.6) | 19 (13.7) | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| 2. Do you feel any difficulty during the 5G-based telerobotic US examination? | 126 (90.6) | 1 (0.7) | 12 (8.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| 3. Are you satisfied with the 5G-based telerobotic US examination? | 2 (1.4) | 64 (46.1) | 73 (52.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| 4. Do you think the 5G-based telerobotic US takes time? | 118 (84.9) | 20 (14.4) | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| 5. Would you like to use the 5G-based telerobotic US as a routine tool? | 0 (0.0) | 71 (51.1) | 68 (48.9) | 0 (0.0) |
The data in parentheses are percentages