Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35266317›Full record

ReviewCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2022

Leveraging 5G technology for robotic surgery and cancer care.

Krunal Pandav, Austen G Te, Nir Tomer, Sujit S Nair, Ashutosh K Tewari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Remote and Telerobotic Ultrasound Imaging.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Security Analysis for Smart Healthcare Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Krunal PandavDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5451-7115
Austen G TeLaboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA.
Nir TomerDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Sujit S NairDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3039-523X
Ashutosh K TewariDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3146-4524

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe field of robotic surgery has seen significant advancements in the past few years and it has been adopted in many large hospitals in the United States and worldwide as a standard for various procedures in recent years. However, the location of many hospitals in urban areas and a lack of surgical expertise in the rural areas could lead to increased travel time and treatment delays for patients in need of robotic surgical management, including cancer patients. The fifth generation (5G) networks have been deployed by various telecom companies in multiple countries worldwide. Our aim is to update the readers about the novel technology and the current scenario of surgical procedures performed using 5G technology. In this article, we also discuss how the technology could aid cancer patients requiring surgical management, the future perspectives, the potential challenges, and the limitations, which would need to overcome prior to widespread real-life use of the technology for cancer care. RECENT

findingsThe expansion of 5G technology has enabled some countries to conduct remote surgical procedures, tele-mentored and real-time interactive procedures on animal models, cadavers, and humans, demonstrating that 5G networks could offer a potential solution to previously experienced latency and reliability hurdles during the remote surgeries performed in the 2000s.

conclusionNew technological advancements could serve as a ground for emerging novel therapeutic applications. While limitations and challenges related to the 5G infrastructure, cost, compatibility, and security exist; researching to overcome the limitations and comprehend the potential benefits of integrating the technology into practice would be imminent before widespread clinical use. Remote and tele-mentored 5G-powered procedures could offer a new tool in improving the care of patients requiring robotic surgical management such as prostate cancer patients.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnimalsHumansMaleReproducibility of Results5Gcancer carerobotic surgerysurgical oncologysurgical therapyurologic oncology

Identifiers

PMID35266317
PMCPMC9351674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.