Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40486583›Full record

ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025

The legal and ethical considerations in cross-border telesurgical procedures.

Chukwuka Elendu, Dependable C Amaechi, Tochi C Elendu, Emmanuel C Amaechi, Ijeoma D Elendu, Olutomiwa A Omokore, Nwamaka C Onubogu, Janet C Omeludike, Eunice T Aregbesola, Oluwagbemiga O Fajimi and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Liability in Telesurgery: Navigating Legal, Ethical, and Cross-Border Challenges in the Era of Global Surgical Care.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

14 authors.

Chukwuka ElenduFederal University Teaching Hospital, Owerri, Nigeria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0249-1865
Dependable C AmaechiIgbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria.
Tochi C ElenduImo State University, Owerri, Nigeria.
Emmanuel C AmaechiMadonna University, Elele, Nigeria.
Ijeoma D ElenduImo State University, Owerri, Nigeria.
Olutomiwa A OmokoreBabcock University Teaching Hospital, Ilishan-Remo, Nigeria.
Nwamaka C OnuboguAbia State University, Uturu, Nigeria.
Janet C OmeludikeUniversity of Chester, Chester, UK.
Eunice T AregbesolaUniversity of Missouri, Columbia, South Carolina.
Oluwagbemiga O FajimiCanterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, England.
Omoyelemi F IdowuBabcock University Teaching Hospital, Ilishan-Remo, Nigeria.
Sopuruchukwu L EmechebePrime Specialist Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria.
Mbanefo C UyanwuneNnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.
Johnson YonniBingham University, Nasarawa, Nigeria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Telesurgery, or remote surgery, represents a transformative fusion of medicine and technology, enabling surgeons to perform procedures on patients located miles away using robotic systems and advanced telecommunications. However, its widespread adoption remains limited, with fewer than 50 documented fully remote telesurgical procedures in the past two decades. While robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly common - accounting for over 1.2 million procedures in 2019 - true cross-border telesurgery is rare due to technological, legal, and ethical barriers. The lack of a unified regulatory framework presents jurisdiction, licensing, liability, and data security challenges, particularly when procedures span international borders. The absence of standardized legal mechanisms creates uncertainty, especially in surgical complications or malpractice claims. A global regulatory framework should address these challenges, incorporating mutual recognition of medical licenses, standardized liability agreements, and uniform data protection protocols aligned with General Data Protection Regulation and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Additionally, real-time 5G-enabled monitoring systems could mitigate latency issues, reducing the risk of surgical errors due to connectivity disruptions. Ethically, telesurgery raises concerns regarding informed consent, equitable access, and accountability. Language barriers, differing cultural attitudes toward robotic surgery, and disparities in healthcare infrastructure complicate ethical oversight. Establishing an international telesurgical ethics board could ensure adherence to standardized consent procedures and promote equitable access through global partnerships. Investment in telesurgical training programs and AI-driven risk mitigation strategies could enhance patient safety. While technological advancements will continue to drive telesurgery's growth, addressing these legal and ethical considerations through harmonized global regulations and strategic policy interventions is crucial for sustainable and equitable integration into modern healthcare.

Indexed as

5G networksartificial intelligencecross-border healthcarerobotic surgerytelesurgery

Identifiers

PMID40486583
PMCPMC12140691

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.