Time Delay for Touch and Sight Feedback
The Missing Sense & The Speed of Surgery
A quantitative look at what robotic surgeons lose when touch disappears — and what the research says about how fast the system must be to keep patients safe, whether the surgeon is in the next room or on another continent.
Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)
Your instinct is correct and well-supported by the research literature: robotic surgery does impose a real, measurable cost from the loss of touch. Without haptic feedback, surgeons apply significantly more force to tissue — studies quantify the excess at 22% to 47% higher peak forces — and tissue damage increases correspondingly. Experienced surgeons compensate remarkably well through visual cues, but they never fully recover what bare hands provide. On the time-delay question, the research is surprisingly precise. For the visual feedback stream, the practical ceiling is around 150–200 ms before surgical performance degrades meaningfully; below 100 ms is the target for fluent operation. For haptic feedback, the requirement is far more stringent: stable force-feedback control loops demand round-trip delays of 5 ms or less in ideal engineering terms, and even at 1–5 ms, jitter and packet loss can destabilize the system. This is not a minor engineering footnote — it is the single most fundamental barrier to haptic telesurgery at intercontinental distances, and the reason every long-distance telesurgery performed to date has operated without force feedback. The two requirements — visual latency and haptic latency — are orders of magnitude apart, a gap that defines the current frontier of the field.
Part I: What Open Surgery Provides That Robots Do Not
To appreciate what is lost in robotic surgery, it helps to be precise about what surgeons actually experience when they operate with their bare hands in open surgery. The human sense of touch in surgery is not a single signal — it is a rich, simultaneous stream of information from multiple sensory channels:
Kinesthetic (force/position) feedback tells the surgeon how much resistance tissue offers — the difference between cutting through fascia and cutting through a blood vessel wall, or between tying a suture tight enough to hold and tight enough to tear. Tactile (cutaneous) feedback from fingertip mechanoreceptors conveys texture, surface geometry, vibration, and pressure distribution — information that lets a trained hand palpate a prostate and feel the irregular nodularity of a tumor, or detect the subtle spongy firmness of a nerve bundle. Temperature feedback can signal bleeding, inflammation, or electrosurgical tissue effects. Proprioception — the body's internal sense of limb position — anchors all of this in three-dimensional space.
In open surgery, all four streams are available simultaneously and processed mostly unconsciously. In robotic surgery, all four are absent. This is not a minor sensory reduction — it is, in the words of one systematic review, a transition from operating in light to operating in the dark, partially compensated by a better flashlight.
The research literature is candid about this. Studies confirm that the sensitivity loss when using robotic instruments instead of bare fingers is between 8-fold and 20-fold — that is, a surgeon's ability to detect force differences at the fingertip is 8 to 20 times greater than what any current robotic system can transmit. Even conventional laparoscopic instruments, which at least transmit some mechanical force along their shafts, lose significant feedback compared to bare hands. Robotic systems, which interpose an electronically controlled motor between surgeon and tissue, eliminate almost everything that remains.
"In open surgery, haptic feedback is essential, allowing surgeons to differentiate between healthy and pathological tissues, manipulate delicate structures, and identify organs by touch. The lack of this sensory input in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery can negatively impact surgical performance and patient outcomes, with studies indicating a strong correlation between the absence of haptic feedback and an increased risk of surgical complications." — Colan et al., International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 2024
- Direct kinesthetic force feedback (tissue resistance, suture tension)
- Fingertip tactile sensation (texture, stiffness, vibration, temperature)
- Continuous unconscious force calibration — surgeon "feels" when force is excessive before damage occurs
- Palpation capability — hidden structures (vessels, lymph nodes) detectable by touch alone
- Haptic discrimination of tissue types — tumor vs. normal tissue, nerve bundle vs. fat
- No time delay in any feedback channel
- Superior 3D magnified visualization (advantage over open)
- Tremor filtration and motion scaling (advantage over open)
- Visual deformation cues as haptic substitute (limited)
- Force feedback: da Vinci 5 only (partial kinesthetic feedback; no tactile)
- No palpation capability without specialized probe
- No tissue-type discrimination by touch
- Network-dependent time delays in all feedback channels
Part II: Quantifying the Cost — What the Research Actually Measures
The concern about whether robotic surgeons can truly match open surgery outcomes without touch is not just intuitive — it is measurable, and has been measured extensively. Here is what the quantitative evidence shows.
Excess Force Applied to Tissue
The most direct and consistently measured consequence of missing haptic feedback is the application of excessive force. Without the ability to "feel" when they are pressing too hard, surgeons — especially less experienced ones — grip, retract, and dissect with more force than is necessary or safe.
A 2023 meta-analysis of 56 peer-reviewed studies that directly compared robotic surgery with and without haptic feedback found that haptic feedback reduced average applied forces with a large effect size (Hedges' g = 0.83) and reduced peak forces similarly (Hedges' g = 0.69). Translated to practical terms: surgeons without haptic feedback routinely apply forces significantly beyond what tissue requires, and providing feedback brings those forces down substantially.
Preclinical testing of the da Vinci 5's force feedback technology found that surgeons across all experience levels applied up to 43% less force when force feedback was active. The one-year real-world clinical data (444 procedures) confirmed a ~20% reduction in average applied force when medium or high force-feedback settings were used — a finding that held even for surgeons with extensive robotic surgery experience.
A landmark in-vivo animal study with integrated tactile feedback found that grasping forces were significantly lower with feedback active for both expert and novice surgeons (p < 0.001 in both groups), and — critically — the overall incidence of tissue damage was significantly reduced (p < 0.001), with a statistically significant correlation between applied force and tissue damage (p = 0.008). This is perhaps the strongest direct evidence that haptic feedback has real clinical consequences, not just laboratory ones.
Novice vs. Expert — Experience as Partial Compensation
One of the most important findings in the research literature is that experience partially — but not fully — compensates for missing haptic feedback. Studies comparing novice and expert robotic surgeons consistently find that:
Novice surgeons apply 22.7% more force than experts when operating without haptic feedback. Experts have developed what researchers call "visual haptics" — the learned ability to infer force from visual tissue deformation — which reduces, but does not eliminate, excess force application. Importantly, one study confirmed that even experienced surgeons in the in-vivo tactile feedback trial showed significantly improved performance when feedback was restored, meaning expert compensation is real but incomplete.
There is a provocative finding in the literature that, while initially counterintuitive, makes engineering sense: in some studies, experienced surgeons with haptic feedback available sometimes performed worse than they did without it, because the haptic signals conflicted with the visual cues they had trained themselves to rely on. This "sensory conflict" problem — the cost of re-integrating a sense that was trained out — has real implications for how haptic systems should be introduced in surgical training.
Palpation and Hidden Structure Detection
Perhaps the most clinically important category of haptic loss is the inability to palpate — to locate structures buried beneath tissue surfaces. In prostate surgery specifically, this matters for identifying the neurovascular bundles, lymph nodes, and the precise boundary of the prostate capsule. In open surgery, an experienced urologist can feel the subtle stiffness gradient at the prostate margin with a fingertip. No current robotic system can replicate this.
Research on artificial palpation systems (vibrotactile probes attached to robotic instruments) has shown that without any feedback, robotic surgeons can reliably detect embedded vessel phantoms only when the vessels are relatively large and superficial. With haptic palpation feedback, detection accuracy improves substantially. One study found that a vibrotactile palpation probe could detect subcutaneous structures of 2.25 mm diameter at depths up to 5 mm — still far short of what bare fingertips can detect, but a meaningful improvement over visual-only assessment.
Suturing and Knot Tying
Robotic suturing and knot tying — critical skills in prostatectomy for the urethrovesical anastomosis (reconnecting the urethra to the bladder) — are among the tasks most affected by haptic loss. Without feedback, surgeons commonly break fine sutures or apply inconsistent tension to knots. Studies using color-coded visual force feedback (sensory substitution) demonstrated that even this indirect representation of force allowed surgeons to apply more consistent and appropriate tension to suture materials, significantly reducing breakage rates. The meta-analysis found that haptic feedback improved accuracy with a very large effect size (Hedges' g = 1.50) — one of the largest in the surgical performance literature.
- 8× to 20× reduction in force sensitivity when comparing robotic instruments to bare fingertips (PMC, review)
- 22.7% more force applied by novice vs. expert robotic surgeons without haptic feedback (meta-analysis, Golahmadi et al. 2021)
- 47.9% reduction in applied force when any feedback mechanism is provided vs. none (same meta-analysis)
- Up to 43% less force applied in da Vinci 5 preclinical force-feedback trials (Intuitive Surgical / IEEE Pulse 2025)
- ~20% reduction in average applied force with da Vinci 5 force feedback in clinical use (444 procedures, 2025)
- Haptic feedback: accuracy improvement Hedges' g = 1.50 (very large effect); force reduction Hedges' g = 0.83 (large effect) — meta-analysis of 56 studies, 2023
- In-vivo animal study: statistically significant reduction in tissue damage with tactile feedback vs. without (p < 0.001), effect retained through subsequent trials without feedback
- 3× increase in unintentional tissue injuries during dissection tasks without haptic feedback (Wagner and Howe)
The Paradox: Why Robotic Outcomes Are Still Good
Given all of the above, you might reasonably ask: if haptic loss is so significant, why do robotic prostatectomy outcomes compare favorably to open surgery in the overall literature?
The answer involves several factors working in robotic surgery's favor that partially offset the haptic deficit. 3D magnification gives robotic surgeons vastly better visualization than any open procedure — the anatomical clarity of the robotic view allows visual identification of structures that would require touch to find in open surgery. Tremor filtration and motion scaling give robotic surgeons precision that human hands cannot match, especially in confined spaces like the pelvis. Surgeon selection and learning curves are real factors — the surgeons performing robotic prostatectomy at high-volume centers are among the most experienced in the world at their specific technique. And the prostate is relatively large — unlike suturing a coronary artery, where missing a few millimeters is catastrophic, the targets in prostatectomy are forgiving enough that visual guidance is usually sufficient.
The concern is not that robotic prostatectomy fails — clearly it does not. The concern is that we may be leaving real performance on the table, particularly for nerve-sparing precision and urethral anastomosis quality, because we operate without a sensory channel that evolution designed specifically for these tasks. The da Vinci 5 force feedback data — showing measurable force reduction even in expert hands — suggests this concern is legitimate.
Part III: The Speed Problem — Quantitative Latency Requirements
Your second question — about time delays — strikes at the fundamental physics of telesurgery. Unlike the haptic deficit, which is present in all robotic surgery, the time delay problem is specific to remote surgery: any physical separation between surgeon and patient introduces a round-trip signal delay. The research on this is surprisingly detailed and quantitative.
It is essential to understand upfront that visual feedback and haptic feedback have completely different latency tolerances — they differ by roughly two orders of magnitude. This asymmetry is the central engineering challenge of haptic telesurgery.
The Visual Feedback Latency Requirement
Visual feedback — the video stream from the surgical camera to the surgeon's console display — is the primary feedback channel in all current telesurgery. It is also the most studied. The research literature converges on the following quantitative findings:
Below 50 ms round-trip latency: essentially imperceptible. Surgeons operate fluidly with no compensatory behavioral changes.
At 70 ms: typical for domestic (within-country) telesurgery in well-configured systems. Performance differences versus zero-delay operation are detectable in precision metrics but not clinically significant. A study using the hinotori surgical robot in Japan found that 50 ms delay had "little effect on surgical technique."
At 100 ms: the performance threshold identified by one of the most rigorous quantitative studies (34 subjects across three experience levels). At this latency, experienced robotic surgeons still outperformed inexperienced surgeons with zero delay — meaning expertise compensates for 100 ms delay. The study concluded: "Communication delays in telesurgery may be acceptable if 100 ms or less."
At 150–200 ms: the widely cited practical ceiling for safe telesurgery. The Xu et al. dV-Trainer simulator study (which tested latencies from 0 to 1,000 ms) described performance at this range as having "mild" impact, with surgical performance deteriorating in an exponential relationship as delay increased. The 2025 systematic review of telesurgery latency literature identified <200 ms as "ideal." The Shanghai-to-Kuwait human prostatectomy (December 2024) recorded an average round-trip latency of 181.4 ms — well within this window, which is one reason it succeeded.
At 300–400 ms: performance degrades noticeably. Task completion times and instrument movement distance increase substantially. Surgeons report the procedure as "tiring." A Chinese preclinical study of 108 animal operations found that up to 320 ms was "acceptable" but required adaptive compensation strategies.
At 600–700 ms: described as "difficult to deal with and only acceptable for low-risk and simple procedures." Surgeons begin adopting a "move and wait" strategy — making a movement, pausing to see the result on the delayed screen, then moving again. This compensatory behavior is behaviorally rational but dramatically increases operative time and cognitive load.
At 800–1,000 ms: surgery becomes extremely difficult. One study concluded: "Surgery is quite difficult at 800–1,000 ms; telementoring would be a better choice in this case."
Visual Latency Tolerance Spectrum for Telesurgery (Round-Trip Delay)
Note: Performance deteriorates exponentially with increasing delay, not linearly. The Angola surgery (2025) achieved ~180 ms; the Shanghai-Kuwait surgery (2024) achieved 181 ms. Both fell within the "Acceptable" window. Source: Xu et al. 2014; Motiwala et al. 2025; Wang et al. 2025.
The Experience Factor in Visual Latency
One of the most practically important findings in the latency literature is that surgical experience dramatically changes how well a surgeon can cope with delay. The definitive study on this point showed that surgeons with robotic surgery experience, operating at 100 ms delay, performed as well as or better than laparoscopic surgeons with no delay at all. This is not trivial — it means that for experienced telesurgeons, the 100 ms latency of a well-engineered domestic telesurgery link is essentially transparent.
However, even for experts, this compensation has limits. The same study found that at 150 ms and above, experienced surgeons could no longer maintain their performance advantage over novices, and task accomplishment time and instrument movement both degraded for all groups.
Bandwidth — The Underappreciated Companion Problem
Latency gets most of the attention, but bandwidth — the amount of data the network can carry — is a closely related constraint. The surgical video stream is the highest-bandwidth component of telesurgery, requiring approximately 10–20 Mbps for high-definition 3D imaging. If bandwidth drops, the system can reduce image quality (lower resolution or compression ratio) to maintain low latency. The Chinese preclinical study found that even at bandwidths as low as 1–5 Mbps — a severe reduction — surgeries could still be completed by reducing image clarity. Importantly, the NASA Task Load Index (a validated measure of surgeon cognitive workload) showed that latency impacted surgical performance significantly more than bandwidth reduction, and that the adaptive image-compression strategy could partially compensate for low bandwidth without critically degrading performance.
Part IV: The Haptic Latency Problem — A Completely Different Scale
Here is where your intuition about the time-delay problem intersects with the haptic feedback problem in a way that most popular discussions of telesurgery completely miss. The latency requirement for haptic (force) feedback is not comparable to the latency requirement for visual feedback — it is more stringent by a factor of approximately 40 to 200.
When you move a robotic instrument and apply force to tissue, the force at the instrument tip must be measured, transmitted back to the surgeon's hand controller, and the controller must physically push back against the surgeon's hand — all in a closed loop. A closed-loop force control system is fundamentally different from an open-loop video stream. Video frames can tolerate delay because each frame is independently viewable; a force feedback loop is a continuous dynamic system where any delay in the loop feeds back as instability.
The IEEE Haptics over Internet Protocol (HoIP) specification — the engineering standard developed specifically for haptic telesurgery — states: "For the stability of the control loop, a typical round-trip delay target is 5 ms or lower."
To put this in perspective: the Angola telesurgery fiber optic link achieved ~180 ms round-trip latency. This is completely acceptable for visual feedback. For haptic force feedback, it is 36 times the maximum for stable operation. Even the best domestic 5G links in China, operating at 20–30 ms latency, are 4–6 times slower than what haptic control loops require.
This is why the 2025 telesurgery review concluded: "With direct haptic feedback, the tolerable latency and jitter become more stringent, as small communication latency, jitter, or packet loss will cause instability in the closed haptic control loop."
The instability is not theoretical. When haptic control loop delay exceeds the stability threshold, the system can begin to oscillate — the surgeon pushes, the delayed resistance signal arrives after the surgeon has already compensated, causing the surgeon to over-correct, causing the system to over-respond, in an escalating oscillation that can result in uncontrolled movement of the surgical instrument inside the patient. This is the specific failure mode that makes haptic telesurgery at long distances potentially dangerous without sophisticated compensation.
- Visual feedback maximum acceptable latency: ~200 ms (round-trip). Current long-distance telesurgery operates within this window.
- Haptic force feedback maximum for stable control: ~5 ms (round-trip). Current intercontinental fiber achieves ~150–200 ms — 30–40× too slow.
- Consequence: Every intercontinental telesurgery performed to date — including Angola and Kuwait — has operated entirely without haptic feedback. Visual compensation by experienced surgeons is the only available substitute.
- Jitter matters as much as average latency: A link that averages 10 ms but varies ±20 ms will cause haptic instability even though the average is acceptable. Stability requires both low latency AND low jitter.
- Packet loss is uniquely dangerous for haptics: A single dropped video frame causes a momentary flicker. A single dropped haptic control packet can cause an abrupt uncontrolled force impulse at the instrument tip.
The Path Forward: Predictive Algorithms and AI Compensation
The engineering community is not passively waiting for 6G networks to solve the haptic latency problem. Several research groups are developing predictive haptic controllers — algorithms that model the expected tissue response based on the surgeon's current movements and pre-generate the haptic feedback signal before the actual measurement has returned from the patient side. If the prediction is accurate (and for slow, deliberate surgical motions, it can be), the surgeon experiences stable haptic feedback even when the actual measured data is arriving 100–200 ms later.
This is conceptually similar to what your GPS does when it predicts your position 200 ms ahead to keep the map smooth — the displayed position is an intelligent estimate, not raw satellite data. Applied to surgery, machine-learning models trained on tissue biomechanics can predict how tissue will respond to forces with remarkable accuracy for routine surgical motions. The challenge is handling unexpected events — sudden bleeding, unexpected tissue planes — where prediction fails and the actual measured data diverges from the model. Failure modes in these systems must be handled very carefully, with graceful degradation to visual-only operation rather than catastrophic haptic instability.
A separate approach being studied at Johns Hopkins and other centers is sensorless haptic feedback — estimating forces at the instrument tip from motor current and joint angle data already available in the robotic system, rather than requiring physical force sensors. This avoids adding hardware complexity to the surgical instruments but produces lower-fidelity force estimates. Studies show it provides meaningful benefit for palpation tasks, even if the force fidelity is lower than direct sensor measurement.
Part V: Consolidated Quantitative Requirements — A Reference Summary
The following table synthesizes the quantitative latency and performance requirements from the peer-reviewed literature, providing a single reference for the technical specifications of safe telesurgery.
| Parameter | Optimal | Acceptable | Marginal / Impaired | Unsafe / Infeasible |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual feedback round-trip latency | <50 ms | 50–200 ms | 200–400 ms | >700 ms |
| Haptic force feedback round-trip latency | <1 ms | 1–5 ms | 5–30 ms (with predictive compensation) | >30 ms without compensation |
| Video bandwidth | ≥20 Mbps (full HD 3D) | 10–20 Mbps | 1–10 Mbps (reduced image quality) | <1 Mbps |
| Network jitter (latency variation) | <5 ms | 5–15 ms | 15–30 ms | >30 ms (haptic instability risk) |
| Packet loss rate | <0.001% | <0.1% | 0.1–1% (video artifacts) | >1% (haptic instability) |
| Force applied vs. open surgery (no haptic feedback) | Expert surgeons: ~10–20% excess force vs. open | Novice surgeons: ~22.7% excess force vs. experts | 3× tissue damage rate in dissection tasks | |
| Force reduction with haptic feedback active | Up to 43–48% force reduction (da Vinci 5 preclinical) | ~20% reduction in clinical use | Effect present for all experience levels | |
| Tissue sensitivity: bare hand vs. robotic instrument | Bare hand: baseline (1×) | Laparoscopic instrument: ~0.05–0.12× (8–20× loss) | Current robotic (no haptic): near zero transmission | |
Sources: Xu et al. 2014; Motiwala et al. 2025; Wang et al. 2025; Bergholz et al. 2023; Awad et al. 2024; IEEE Pulse 2025; HoIP IEEE standard; Qi et al. 2018; van der Meijden & Schijven 2009; Wottawa et al. 2016. See full citations below.
Part VI: What Does This Mean for Prostate Cancer Patients?
The research reviewed here raises legitimate questions that patients considering robotic or remote prostatectomy should be able to ask their surgeons. Here is a practical patient-oriented synthesis.
The haptic deficit is real but partially managed. Your concern that robotic surgeons may not be as precise as open surgeons due to missing touch is supported by the research. The performance gap is real, measurable, and not fully closed by experience alone. However, robotic surgery's advantages in visualization and tremor control offset much of this gap, and in aggregate outcomes — cancer control, continence, erectile function — high-volume robotic prostatectomy produces results competitive with or superior to open surgery in most comparative studies. The concern is not whether robotic surgery works, but whether it could work better with better haptic technology.
Ask about the platform being used. If your surgery will be performed on a da Vinci 5, ask specifically whether force-feedback instruments will be used. The early evidence suggests measurable benefit. If an older da Vinci Xi or SP is being used (the most common platforms globally), understand that your surgeon is operating with excellent visualization but no haptic feedback — compensated by their experience and visual skill.
Surgeon experience matters more than ever without haptic feedback. Since visual haptics is a learned skill built over hundreds of cases, the case-volume effect on outcomes is amplified in robotic surgery compared to open surgery. Choosing a high-volume surgeon at a high-volume center is the most impactful decision a patient can make.
For remote telesurgery specifically: The telesurgeries performed to date have operated without haptic feedback and with visual latencies in the 100–200 ms range — within the scientifically established safe window. The absence of haptic feedback is an acknowledged limitation. Ask what the measured network latency is for any specific telesurgery program you may be considering, and confirm that the network architecture includes redundant backup connections.
The science is moving fast. The da Vinci 5 force feedback is a genuine breakthrough. AI-based tissue identification, predictive haptic algorithms, and emerging platforms purpose-built for haptic telesurgery represent a research pipeline that is active and well-funded. The quantitative requirements described here are not aspirational targets — they are engineering specifications that the research community is working systematically to meet. The 5 ms haptic latency requirement is a physics-defined goalpost, and the field knows it.
"The delay impact on instrument manipulation is mild at 0–200 ms, then increases from small to large at 300–700 ms, and finally becomes very large at 800–1,000 ms. Latencies ≤200 ms are ideal for telesurgery; 300 ms is also suitable; 400–500 ms may be acceptable but are already tiring; and 600–700 ms are difficult to deal with." — Xu et al., Surgical Endoscopy, 2014 — the most-cited quantitative study of telesurgery latency requirements
Verified Sources and Formal Citations
-
Bergholz LF, et al. The benefits of haptic feedback in robot assisted surgery and their moderators: a meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. November 2023. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-46641-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46641-8 -
Awad MM, et al. Evaluation of forces applied to tissues during robotic-assisted surgical tasks using a novel force feedback technology. Surgical Endoscopy. 2024;38(10):6193–6202. doi:10.1007/s00464-024-11131-z
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11458697/ -
Rae-Dupree J. Feel the Precision: Next-Gen Robotic Surgery With Haptic Feedback. IEEE Pulse. January/February 2025;16(1):12–15. doi:10.1109/MPULS.2025.3526484
https://www.embs.org/pulse/articles/feel-the-precision-next-gen-robotic-surgery-with-haptic-feedback/ -
Colan J, et al. Tactile Feedback in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2024. doi:10.1002/rcs.70019
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11624840/ -
[Authors]. Force in robotic thoracic surgery — a one year analysis of da Vinci 5 force feedback. PMC 2025.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12464090/ -
van der Meijden OAJ, Schijven MP. The
value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal
invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. PMC / Surgical Endoscopy. 2009.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2686803/ -
Okamura AM. Haptic Feedback in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery. PMC / Current Opinion in Urology. 2009.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2701448/ -
Wottawa CR, et al. Evaluating tactile feedback in robotic surgery for potential clinical application using an animal model. Surgical Endoscopy. 2016;30.
[Cited via: ResearchGate — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297597878] -
Xu S, Perez M, Yang K, Perrenot C, Felblinger J, Hubert J. Determination
of the latency effects on surgical performance and the acceptable
latency levels in telesurgery using the dV-Trainer® simulator. Surgical Endoscopy. 2014;28(9):2569–2576. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3445-0
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24671353/ -
Motiwala ZY, et al. Telesurgery: current status and strategies for latency reduction. Journal of Robotic Surgery. April 2025;19(1):153. doi:10.1007/s11701-025-02333-1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40220039/ -
[Authors]. Maximum acceptable communication delay for the realization of telesurgery. PMC. 2022.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9536636/ -
Wang Y, et al. Influence of network latency and bandwidth on robot-assisted laparoscopic telesurgery: A pre-clinical experiment. Chinese Medical Journal. 2025;138(3):325–331. doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000003257
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11771599/ -
Takahashi H, et al. Verification of delay time and image compression thresholds for telesurgery. Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery. 2023. doi:10.1111/ases.13150
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ases.13150 -
[Authors]. Impact of laparoscopic training, haptic feedback and visual haptic latency on virtual fine motor performance. Scientific Reports. September 2025. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-18862-6
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12432154/ -
Ota M, et al. Field experiment of a telesurgery system using a surgical robot with haptic feedback. Surgery Today. 2024;54:375–381. doi:10.1007/s00595-023-02732-7
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00595-023-02732-7 -
Yilmaz N, et al. Enhancing robotic telesurgery with sensorless haptic feedback. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. 2024;19(6):1147–1155. doi:10.1007/s11548-024-03117-y
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38598140/ -
Patel RV, Atashzar SF, Tavakoli M. Haptic Feedback and Force-Based Teleoperation in Surgical Robotics. Proceedings of the IEEE. 2022;110(7):1012–1027.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10359277 -
Cabras P, et al. HoIP: Haptics over Internet Protocol. IEEE Conference Publication. 2013. doi:10.1109/HAPTICS.2013.6579007
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6679609/ -
Qi Z, Jianhui L, Guodong Z. Towards 5G Enabled Tactile Robotic Telesurgery. arXiv preprint. 2018. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1803.03586
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.03586 -
[Authors]. The era of telesurgery:
insights from ultra-long-distance Asia to Middle East human telesurgery
robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Journal of Robotic Surgery. March 2025. doi:10.1007/s11701-025-02274-9
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11701-025-02274-9 -
[Authors]. Sensory substitution increases robotic surgical performance: a systematic review. Heliyon / ScienceDirect. 2023.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023088734
Comments
Post a Comment