THE ROLE AND PLACE OF TELEMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SURGICAL PRACTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. LITERATURE REVIEW
https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2072-3180.2021.2.94-100
Abstract
Aim: To determine the current aspects in use of the telemedical technologies (TT) in surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, to consider the availability of innovative devices for remote interaction of the systems doctor-patient, doctor-doctor, compare the effectiveness of using the usual approach in the treatment of a surgical patient with modern remote techniques using TT.
Materials and methods: An analysis was carried out of various domestic and foreign medical literary sources that have information and data from their own and third-party research on modern aspects in the use of TT in surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Results: After an analysis medical literature sources, it was found that at all three stages of the management of a modern surgical patient during the COVID-19 pandemic, innovative TT allow to achieve satisfying results in most cases of use. Moreover, at some specific stages, the use of online systems helps to achieve a better result than the usual “face-to-face” interaction between doctor/patiet. The main disadvantages of telemedicine relate to the problem of technical problems and the inability to achieve a stable online connection.
Conclusion: Based on the above, it was concluded that TT in the surgeon-practice during the COVID-19 pandemic play an important role, allowing to achieve optimal results in some stages of patient management. Given the insignificant percentage of ineffective use, it is safe to say that TT have already established as the "golden standard" of surgical patient management in modern epidemiological conditions.
About the Authors
V. S. Fomin
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry n.a. A.I. Yevdokimov; Veresaev City Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Fomin Vladimir - MD, PhD, Associate Professor, surgeon
str. Delegatskaja, 20/1, Moscow, 127473
10, 127644, Moscow, Russia
D. V. Stepanov
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry n.a. A.I. Yevdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Stepanov Dmitry - 1st year Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Disaste Medicine full-time clinical resident
str. Delegatskaja, 20/1, Moscow, 127473
I. P. Parfenov
Veresaev City Clinical Hospital; Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Study, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Parfenov Igor – MD, Professor of the Department of surgery, Chief physician
st. Lobnenskaya, 10, 127644, Moscow
P. E. Kraynyukov
Federal State «P.V. Mandryka’s Central military clinical hospital»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kraynyukov Pavel - MD, associate professor, general of the medical service, Head
st. Bolshaya Olenya, possession 8A
M. N. Fomina
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry n.a. A.I. Yevdokimov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Fomina Milana - MD, PhD, Associate Professor
str. Delegatskaja, 20/1, Moscow, 127473
References
1. Ambroise B., Benateau H., Prevost R., Traore H., Hauchard K., Dia H., Veyssière A. The Contribution of Telemedicine to Humanitarian Surgery. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2018, 46(8), pp.1368-1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.05.037
2. Manel Cremades, Georgina Ferret, David Pares, Jordi Navines, Franc Espin, Fernando Pardo, Albert Caballero, Marta Viciano, Joan Francesc Julian. Telemedicine to follow patients in a general surgery department. A randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Surgery. 2020, 219(6), рр. 882–887.
3. L. H. Eadie, A. M. Seifalian and B. R. Davidson. Telemedicine in surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 2003, 90, рр. 647–665.
4. Chadrick R. Evans Melissa G. Medina1 Anthony Michael Dwyer. Telemedicine and telerobotics: from science fiction to reality. Updates in Surgery, 2018, 1, рр. 1–6.
5. Margaret Mullen-Fortino, MSN RN, Kristin L., Rising, MD MSHP, Janeen Duckworth, MSN, APRN, BC, Venus Gwynn, MSN, RN, Frank D. Sites, MHA, BSN, RN, and Judd E. Hollander, MD. Presurgical Assessment Using Telemedicine Technology: Impact on Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Patient Experience of Care. TELEMEDICINE and e-HEALTH, 2018, 25(2), рр. 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2017.0133
6. Ellimoottil C., Boxer R.J. Bringing surgical care to the home through video visits. JAMA Surg., 2018, 153(2), рр. 177–178. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4926
7. Vyas K.S., Hambrick H.R., Shakir A. et al. A systematic review of the use of telemedicine in plastic and reconstructive surgery and dermatology. Ann. Plast. Surg., 2017, 78(6), рр. 736–768. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001044
8. Barold S.S. Willem Einthoven and the birth of clinical electrocardiography a hundred years ago. Card. Electrophysiol. Rev., 2003, 7 (1), рр. 99–104.
9. Eadie L.H., Seifalian A.M., Davidson B.R. Telemedicine in surgery. Br. J. Surg,. 2003; 90(6), рр. 647–658.
10. Augestad K.M., Lindsetmo R-O. Overcoming distance: videoconferencing as a clinical and educational tool among surgeons. World J. Surg., 2009, 33, рр.1356–1365.
11. Santomauro M., Reina G.A., Stroup S.P, L’Esperance JO Telementoring in robotic surgery. Curr Opin Urol., 2013, № 23(2), рр. 141–145.
12. Gruessner V. The history of remote monitoring, telemedicine technology. Mhealthintelligence, 2015. https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/the-history-of-remote-monitoring-telemedicine-technology
13. Vinches A. What you didn’t know about the history of telemedicine. Sightcall, 2018. https://sightcall.com/history-telemedicine/
14. Bokolo Anthony Jnr. Use of Telemedicine and Virtual Care for Remote Treatment in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Medical Systems, 2020, 44, р.132.
15. Heather Lukas, Changhao Xu, You Yu, and Wei Gao. Emerging Telemedicine Tools for Remote COVID-19 Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Management. ACS NANO., 2020, 14,12, рр. 16180–16193.
16. Glassman D.T., Puri A.K., Weingarten S., Hollander J.E., Stepchin A., Trabulsi E., Gomella L.G. A single institutions initial experience with telemedicine. Urology Practice, 2017, 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2017.08.004
17. Dixon R., Stahl J. Virtual visits in a general medicine practice: A pilot study. J. Telemed. Telecare, 2008, 14, рр. 525–530.
18. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. Guidelines for the surgical practice of telemedicine. Surg. Endosc., 2000, 14, рр. 975–979.
19. Simon I.B. Concepts of telepresence surgery. Surg Endosc., 1993, № 7, рр. 462–463.
20. Satava R.M. Emerging technologies for surgery in the 21st century. Arch. Surg., 1999, 134, рр. 1197–1202.
21. Cadiere G.B, Himpens J., Germay O., Izizaw R., Degueldre M., Vandromme J. et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J. Surg., 2001, Nov; 25(11), рр. 1467–1477.
22. Rassweiler J., Frede T., Seemann O., Stock C., Sentker L. Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Initial experience. Eur. Urol., 2001, 40, рр. 75–83.
23. Marescaux J., Smith M.K., Folscher D., Jamali F., ¨ Malassagne B., Leroy J. Telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial clinical experience with 25 patients. Ann. Surg., 2001, 234, рр. 1–7.
24. Reichenspurner H., Damiano R.J., Mack M., Boehm D.H., Gulbins H., Detter C. et al. Use of the voice-controlled and computer-assisted surgical system ZEUS for endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 1999, 118, рр. 11–16.
25. Marescaux J., Leroy J., Gagner M. et al. Transatlantic robotassisted telesurgery. Nature, 2011, 413, р. 379.
26. Marescaux J., Leroy J., Rubino F. et al Transcontinental robotassisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications. Ann. Surg., 2002, 235(4), рр. 487–492.
27. Falk V., Diegler A., Walther T., Autschbach R., Mohr F.W. Developments in robotic cardiac surgery. Curr. Opin. Cardiol., 2000, 15, рр. 378–387.
28. Allen D., Bowersox J., Jones G.G. Current status of telesurgery. Telemedicine Today, 1997. http://www.telemedtoday.com/articles/telesurgery.html
29. Marescaux J., Leroy J., Rubino F., Smith M., Vix M., Simone M. et al. Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications. Ann. Surg., 2002, 235, рр. 487–492.
30. Ottensmeyer M., Hu J., Thompson J., Ren J., Sheridan T. Investigations into performance of minimally invasive telesurgery with feedback time delays. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ, 2000, 9, рр. 369–382.
31. Hollis RH, Cannon J.A.., Singletary B.A., Korb M.L., Hawn M.T., Heslin M.J. Understanding the value of both laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared to the open approach in colorectal surgery. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech., 2016, 26(11), рр. 850–856. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2015.0620
32. Coccolini F., Catena F., Pisano M. et al. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and metaanalysis. Int. J. Surg., 2015, 18, рр. 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.04.083
Review
For citations:
Fomin V.S., Stepanov D.V., Parfenov I.P., Kraynyukov P.E., Fomina M.N. THE ROLE AND PLACE OF TELEMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SURGICAL PRACTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. LITERATURE REVIEW. Moscow Surgical Journal. 2021;(2):94-100. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2072-3180.2021.2.94-100
Views:
509
Email this article 