ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
The need for a dedicated surgical consent framework for robotic telesurgery: a global call to action.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic telesurgery has progressed from experimental demonstrations to real-world clinical implementation across multiple continents. Landmark interconnected procedures, including intercontinental robotic prostatectomies, humanitarian implementations in underserved regions, and expansion of teleproctoring/tele-mentoring networks, showcase a rapidly maturing field. Despite this proliferation, no standardized, procedure-specific surgical consent for telesurgery exists in the medical literature. Current consent processes for robotic surgery, telemedicine, and surgical research fail to address critical elements unique to telesurgery, including latency thresholds, technical redundancies, network architecture, cybersecurity risks, remote surgeon responsibilities, and contingency planning. Our article aims to define the essential elements that should compose a dedicated telesurgery-specific informed consent and to highlight why current consent frameworks are insufficient for this rapidly expanding global practice. This expert-opinion paper synthesizes high-impact literature on consent ethics, digital surgery, telehealth governance, and robotic surgery; evaluates current consents used in pioneering telesurgery programs across North America, South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia; and incorporates multidisciplinary insights from surgery, anesthesiology, biomedical engineering, cybersecurity, telecommunications, ethics, and global health. We identify major gaps in contemporary consent frameworks, including (1) inadequate disclosure of connectivity-related risks; (2) insufficient explanation of data transmission, cybersecurity, and encryption; (3) absence of latency thresholds and safety-based interruption criteria; (4) lack of transparency regarding remote surgeon responsibility and handover protocols; and (5) limited patient education regarding contingency conversion and chain-of-care accountability. We thus propose a 9-component International Telesurgery Consent Framework, providing standardized language and structure for global implementation. The rapid expansion of telesurgery demands an equally rapid evolution in patient-centered informed consent. A dedicated telesurgery consent should become the ethical, medicolegal, and operational standard for any remote robotic clinical procedure. This paper serves as the basis for an international consensus effort involving global leaders in robotic surgery, telehealth, AI-enabled surgery, and digital health regulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42277485What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.