Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37653350›Full record

ArticleSurgery today2024

Field experiment of a telesurgery system using a surgical robot with haptic feedback.

Mitsuhiko Ota, Eiji Oki, Tomonori Nakanoko, Yasushi Tanaka, Satoshi Toyota, Qingjiang Hu, Yu Nakaji, Ryota Nakanishi, Koji Ando, Yasue Kimura and 16 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Feasibility and Initial Outcomes of Telesurgery in Urology: a Systematic Review of the Literature.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

26 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Mitsuhiko OtaDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Eiji OkiDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. oki.eiji.857@m.kyushu-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9763-9366
Tomonori NakanokoDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Yasushi TanakaDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Satoshi ToyotaDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Qingjiang HuDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Yu NakajiDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Ryota NakanishiDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Koji AndoDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Yasue KimuraDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Yuichi HisamatsuDepartment of Surgery, Kyushu University Beppu Hospital, Beppu, Japan.
Koshi MimoriDepartment of Surgery, Kyushu University Beppu Hospital, Beppu, Japan.
Yoshiya TakahashiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Hajime MorohashiCommittee for Promotion of Remote Surgery Implementation, Japan Surgical Society, Tokyo, Japan.
Takahiro KannoRIVERFIELD Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Kotaro TadanoRIVERFIELD Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Kenji KawashimaRIVERFIELD Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Hironobu TakanoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery II, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Yuma EbiharaCommittee for Promotion of Remote Surgery Implementation, Japan Surgical Society, Tokyo, Japan.
Masaki ShiotaDepartment of Urology, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Junichi InokuchiDepartment of Urology, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Masatoshi EtoDepartment of Urology, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Tomoharu YoshizumiDepartment of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Kenichi HakamadaCommittee for Promotion of Remote Surgery Implementation, Japan Surgical Society, Tokyo, Japan.
Satoshi HiranoCommittee for Promotion of Remote Surgery Implementation, Japan Surgical Society, Tokyo, Japan.
Masaki MoriCommittee for Promotion of Remote Surgery Implementation, Japan Surgical Society, Tokyo, Japan.
Kyushu University · JPHirosaki University · JPHokkaido University · JPKyushu University Beppu Hospital · JPTokai University · JPTokyo Institute of Technology · JPTokyo University of Information Sciences · JP

Funding

AMED JP21hs0122001h0002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo verify the usefulness of haptic feedback in telesurgery and improve the safety of telerobotic surgery.

methodsThe surgeon's console was installed at two sites (Fukuoka and Beppu; 140 km apart), and the patient cart was installed in Fukuoka. During the experiment, the surgeon was blinded to the haptic feedback levels and asked to grasp the intestinal tract in an animal model. The surgeon then performed the tasks at each location.

resultsNo marked differences in task accuracy or average grasping force were observed between the surgeon locations. However, the average task completion time was significantly longer, and the system usability scale (SUS) was significantly lower rating for remote operations than for local ones. No marked differences in task accuracy or task completion time were observed between the haptic feedback levels. However, with haptic feedback, the organ was grasped with a significantly weaker force than that without it. Furthermore, with haptic feedback, experienced surgeons in robotic surgery tended to perform an equivalent task with weaker grasping forces than inexperienced surgeons.

conclusionThe haptic feedback function is a tool that allows the surgeon to perform surgery with an appropriate grasping force, both on site and remotely. Improved safety is necessary in telesurgery; haptic feedback will thus be an essential technology in robotic telesurgery going forward.

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgeonsAnimalsFeedbackHaptic TechnologyHumansGrasping forceHaptic feedbackRobotic surgeryRobotic telesurgeryTelesurgery

Identifiers

PMID37653350
OpenAlexW4386315613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.