Remote Telesurgery Versus Local Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Comparative Evidence Base

IF 2.4 3区医学 Q2 SURGERY

International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery Pub Date : 2026-08-15 DOI:10.1002/rcs.70224

Sara Ben Hmido, Houssam Abder Rahim, Faridi S van Etten-Jamaludin, Dirk Ubbink, Frank Bloemers

{"title":"Remote Telesurgery Versus Local Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Comparative Evidence Base","authors":"Sara Ben Hmido, Houssam Abder Rahim, Faridi S van Etten-Jamaludin, Dirk Ubbink, Frank Bloemers","doi":"10.1002/rcs.70224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Remote telesurgery allows surgeons to operate over a distance using robotic systems and advanced networks. This review aims to compare remote telesurgery with local minimally invasive surgery (MIS) regarding patient outcomes and system-level outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A PRISMA-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42023474196) searched six databases to 1 August 2025 for studies comparing remote telesurgery with local MIS in living patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among 5737 records, one retrospective cohort met the criteria. It compared 5G-enabled remote robotic pelvic fracture surgery (<i>n</i> = 80) with local robotic surgery (<i>n</i> = 80). Remote procedures had lower blood loss (20 vs. 50 mL) and shorter incisions (1.25 vs. 1.5 cm). Operative time did not significantly differ between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.177), and complications, hospital stay, and functional outcomes were similar.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Comparative data on telesurgery remain limited, and healthcare system benefits are unproven. Future studies should incorporate direct comparisons and systematically evaluate system-level outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50311,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery","volume":"22 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13477495/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rcs.70224","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Remote telesurgery allows surgeons to operate over a distance using robotic systems and advanced networks. This review aims to compare remote telesurgery with local minimally invasive surgery (MIS) regarding patient outcomes and system-level outcomes.

Methods

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42023474196) searched six databases to 1 August 2025 for studies comparing remote telesurgery with local MIS in living patients.

Results

Among 5737 records, one retrospective cohort met the criteria. It compared 5G-enabled remote robotic pelvic fracture surgery (n = 80) with local robotic surgery (n = 80). Remote procedures had lower blood loss (20 vs. 50 mL) and shorter incisions (1.25 vs. 1.5 cm). Operative time did not significantly differ between groups (p = 0.177), and complications, hospital stay, and functional outcomes were similar.

Conclusions

Comparative data on telesurgery remain limited, and healthcare system benefits are unproven. Future studies should incorporate direct comparisons and systematically evaluate system-level outcomes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

远程外科手术与局部微创手术：比较证据基础的系统回顾。

背景：远程外科手术允许外科医生使用机器人系统和先进的网络进行远程手术。这篇综述的目的是比较远程外科手术与局部微创手术（MIS）在患者和系统层面的结果。方法：一项符合prisma标准的系统评价（PROSPERO CRD42023474196）检索了6个数据库，检索了截至2025年8月1日在世患者中远程远程手术与本地MIS的比较研究。结果：在5737例记录中，1例回顾性队列符合标准。该研究比较了5g远程机器人骨盆骨折手术（n = 80）和局部机器人手术（n = 80）。远程手术出血量较低（20 vs 50 mL），切口较短（1.25 vs 1.5 cm）。两组间手术时间无显著差异（p = 0.177），并发症、住院时间和功能结局相似。结论：远程手术的比较数据仍然有限，医疗保健系统的益处尚未得到证实。未来的研究应包括直接比较和系统地评价系统级结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

12.00%

发文量

131

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery provides a cross-disciplinary platform for presenting the latest developments in robotics and computer assisted technologies for medical applications. The journal publishes cutting-edge papers and expert reviews, complemented by commentaries, correspondence and conference highlights that stimulate discussion and exchange of ideas. Areas of interest include robotic surgery aids and systems, operative planning tools, medical imaging and visualisation, simulation and navigation, virtual reality, intuitive command and control systems, haptics and sensor technologies. In addition to research and surgical planning studies, the journal welcomes papers detailing clinical trials and applications of computer-assisted workflows and robotic systems in neurosurgery, urology, paediatric, orthopaedic, craniofacial, cardiovascular, thoraco-abdominal, musculoskeletal and visceral surgery. Articles providing critical analysis of clinical trials, assessment of the benefits and risks of the application of these technologies, commenting on ease of use, or addressing surgical education and training issues are also encouraged. The journal aims to foster a community that encompasses medical practitioners, researchers, and engineers and computer scientists developing robotic systems and computational tools in academic and commercial environments, with the intention of promoting and developing these exciting areas of medical technology.