4.6 Review

A comprehensive review of telementoring applications in laparoscopic general surgery

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2175-x

关键词

Telementoring; Mentoring; Remote assistance; Laparoscopy; Community hospitals; Learning curve

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Incorporation of advanced laparoscopic procedures in the practice of institutions without respective experience is a significant impediment in the dissemination of minimally invasive techniques. On-site mentoring programs carry several cost-related and practical constraints. Telementoring has emerged as a practical and cost-effective alternative mentoring tool. The present study aimed to review the pertinent literature on telementoring applications in laparoscopic general surgery. A systematic review using the Medline database was performed. Articles reporting on clinical experience with telementoring applications in general surgery were included. Variations in methodology, study design, and operative procedures precluded cumulative outcome evaluation. Instead, a critical appraisal of current evidence was undertaken. Seventy-five articles were identified in the primary search, and ten studies were considered eligible. No randomized studies comparing on-site mentoring with telementoring were identified. The included studies reported on a total of 96 laparoscopic telementored procedures: 50 cholecystectomies, 23 colorectal resections, 7 fundoplications, 9 adrenalectomies, 6 hernia repairs, and 2 splenectomies. Completion of remotely assisted procedures was feasible in the vast majority of cases, whereas technical difficulties included video and audio latency with low transfer rates (< 128 kbps) and inadequate guidance regarding the correct plane for dissection. Current evidence supports the feasibility and safety of telementoring programs in general surgery. Their clinical effectiveness as teaching alternatives to traditional mentoring programs remains to be further evaluated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据