
==== Front
Int J Surg
Int J Surg
JS9
International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
1743-9191
1743-9159
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Hagerstown, MD

38833338
IJS-D-24-00743
10.1097/JS9.0000000000001662
00004
3
Original Research
New augmented reality remote for virtual guidance and education of fracture surgery: a retrospective, non-inferiority, multi-center cohort study
Liu Songxiang MD ab598628576@qq.com

Xie Mao MD axiemao886@163.com

Gao Fei MD acofly0304@hotmail.com

Fang Ying MD a13695106308@163.com

Xue Mingdi MD ax92m11d11@outlook.com

Zuo Bingran PhD cbingran.zuo@ntu.edu.sg

Wang Junwen MD dwjw0730@163.com

Hu Jialang MD dhujialang821012@126.com

Liu Rong MD edr_liurong@whu.edu.cn

Zhang Jiayao MD a459882800@qq.com

Huo Tongtong MD a15764358491@163.com

Liu Pengran MD alprlprlprwd@163.com

Zeng Cheng PhD fzengc@whu.edu.cn

Yew Andy PhD andy.yew.k.s@sgh.com.sg
g*
Chen Heng-Gui PhD h*chg@fjmu.edu.cn

Ye Zhewei MD ab*yezhewei@hust.edu.cn

a Department of Orthopedics Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan
b Intelligent Medical Laboratory, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
c Rehabilitation Research Institute of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
d Department of Orthopedics, Wuhan Fourth People’s Hospital
e Department of Orthopedics, Wuhan Puren Hospital
f School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
g Division of Musculoskeletal Sciences, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
h Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
* Corresponding authors. Address: Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China. Tel.: +86 139 712 138 80. E-mail: yezhewei@hust.edu.cn (Z. Ye); Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350122, China. Tel.: +86 183 591 871 86. E-mail: chg@fjmu.edu.cn (H-G. Chen), and Division of Musculoskeletal Sciences, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore. Tel.: +65 985 511 93. E-mail: andy.yew.k.s@sgh.com.sg (A. Yew).
9 2024
4 6 2024
110 9 53345341
28 2 2024
9 5 2024
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Background:

The demand for telesurgery is rapidly increasing. Augmented reality (AR) remote surgery is a promising alternative, fulfilling a worldwide need in fracture surgery. However, previous AR endoscopic and Google Glass remotes remain unsuitable for fracture surgery, and the application of remote fracture surgery has not been reported. The authors aimed to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of a new AR remote in fracture surgery.

Materials and methods:

This retrospective non-inferiority cohort study was conducted at three centres. Between 1 January 2018 and 31 March 2022, 800 patients who underwent fracture surgery were eligible for participation. The study enroled 551 patients with fractures (132 patellae, 128 elbows, 126 tibial plateaus, and 165 ankles) divided into an AR group (specialists used AR to remotely guide junior doctors to perform surgeries) and a traditional non-remote group (specialists performed the surgery themselves).

Results:

Among 364 patients (182 per group) matched by propensity score, seven (3.8%) in the AR group and six (3%) in the non-remote group developed complications. The 0.005 risk difference (95% CI: −0.033 to 0.044) was below the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of a 10% absolute increase. A similar distribution in the individual components of all complications was found between the groups. Hierarchical analysis following propensity score matching revealed no statistical difference between the two groups regarding functional results at 1-year follow-up, operative time, amount of bleeding, number of fluoroscopies, and injury surgery interval. A Likert scale questionnaire showed positive results (median scores: 4–5) for safety, efficiency, and education.

Conclusion:

This study is the first to report that AR remote surgery can be as safe and effective as that performed by a specialist in person for fracture surgery, even without the physical presence of a specialist, and is associated with improving the skills and increasing the confidence of junior surgeons. This technique is promising for remote fracture surgery and other open surgeries, offering a new strategy to address inadequate medical care in remote areas.

Keywords:

augmented reality
fracture
remote surgery
OPEN-ACCESSTRUE
SDCT
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Highlights

This is the first study to report augmented reality (AR) system with a screen directly located in the surgical visual field for remote guidance of fracture surgery, and provided the first clinical evidence.

The AR remote model is as safe and effective as a specialist performing the surgery himself for fracture surgery without being physically present and associated with improving the skills and increasing the confidence of junior surgeons.

This technique is a promising remote model for fracture and other open surgeries that will provide a new strategy.

The unequal distribution of medical resources remains a global issue. Although new technologies and ideas constantly evolve, inexperienced medical caregivers and outdated technologies and ideas in medically underserved areas may prevent patients from accessing optimal treatment1–3. This disparity increases the risks of complications, larger surgical incisions, and suboptimal cosmetic outcomes, depriving patients of equitable medical services. Moreover, seeking in-person consultation or transferring patients to a better-equipped hospital increases transportation hazards, medical burden, nursing care inconvenience, and travel costs3–8. Remote surgical instruction can help address this challenge, yet its full potential remains underutilized.

In the past, remote surgical instructions provided via audio and video methods (such as speaking commands or directional cues) did not accurately, quickly, and effectively facilitate the performance of remote surgical procedures6. Recent technological advancements have introduced augmented reality (AR), enabling virtual instructions for remote surgery. Previous AR remote surgical guidance relied primarily on endoscopic systems, microscopes, AR glass, and Google Glass9–13. When these methods are used for non-endoscopic procedures, such as internal fixation of fractures, surgeons must constantly shift their focus between the operating field and the video screen during remote instruction. This process increases the operating time and distracts the operator’s attention since it involves applying the instructions on the screen to the operating field, increasing the surgeon’s cognitive burden. Past AR remote surgical guidance delivered suboptimal viewing due to lacking a clear distance view, especially for detailed guidance. Furthermore, the Google Glass remote mode guidance field of view is not aligned with the operating field view9–13.

Given these issues, we developed a new AR remote system featuring a screen positioned within the surgeon’s visual field to guide fracture surgery remotely using an adjustable stent at the operating end. To our knowledge, no study has reported the performance of remote-guided fracture surgery with AR and remote-guided surgery with screens located directly in the surgical visual field9–19. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this new AR remote mode. We hypothesise that this new remote mode will improve the implementation of remote fracture surgery effectively and safely.

Materials and methods

Data sources and study population

This retrospective cohort analysis used information from the electronic medical record databases of three centres in Hubei, China. The database contains data on population characteristics at hospital admission, injury details, and surgical notes. The patients’ postoperative data were obtained from the follow-up records. Following fracture surgery, patients undergo routine outpatient review within the first 3 months, with appointments typically scheduled every 2–4 weeks. After 3 months, outpatient visits are scheduled every 2–6 months. The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB number: 2022087501) and followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guideline for cohort studies. The work has been reported in line with the STROCSS criteria, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C712 20. This study is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Patients who were admitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 March 2022, due to elbow fracture, tibial plateau fracture, patella fracture, or ankle fracture and underwent open reduction and internal fixation were included in the study. The study excluded patients with other injuries to the ipsilateral limb, pathological fractures, fractures older than 14 days, a history of fractures, or surgery performed at the site of the current fracture.

A total of 800 patients who underwent surgery for fractures of the elbow, tibial plateau, patella, and ankle fracture were selected. The patients were divided into an AR group (specialists remotely guided junior doctors in performing surgeries through AR) and a traditional non-remote group (specialists performed the surgery). Of the 800 patients, 249 were excluded (40 in the AR group; 209 in the non-remote surgery group) because they met one or more of the exclusion criteria: a follow-up period of less than 1 year (126 patients, 50.6%), fracture more than 14 days (33 patients, 13.3%), other injuries in the ipsilateral limb (50 patients, 20.1%), and repeated fracture or surgery on the currently fractured site (40 patients, 16.1%). The final study cohort comprised 551 patients (184 patients (33.4%) in the AR remote surgery group and 367 patients (66.6%) in the non-remote surgery group) (Table 1). To minimise potential confounding factors between the two groups, we used propensity score matching (PSM) to match patients in the AR remote surgery group with those in the non-remote surgery group who shared similar characteristics.

Table 1 Baseline demographic characteristics of patients before and after propensity score matching based on type of AR remote group and non-remote surgery group.

	Before propensity score matching		After propensity score matching		
Characteristic	AR group (n=184)	Non-remote surgery group (n=367)	P	AR group (n=182)	Non-remote surgery group (n=182)	P	
Age (Mean±SD)	48.23±14.04	47.95±15.21	0.863	48.11±14.07	48.29±15.05	0.896	
(Median, range)	50.5 (18, 82)	48 (18, 83)		50 (18, 82)	47 (18, 77)		
BMI（Mean±SD)	23.17±3.20	22.80±2.84	0.342	23.17±3.19	22.78±2.84	0.303	
 ≤18.5	8 (4.3)	17 (4.6)		8 (4.4)	8 (4.4)		
 18.5–23.9	113 (61.4)	232 (63.2)		107 (58.8)	110 (60.4)		
 ≥24.0	63 (34.2)	118 (32.2)		67 (36.8)	64 (35.2)		
Sex, n (%)			0.311			0.525	
 Male	102 (55.4)	220 (59.9)		101 (55.5)	107 (58.8)		
 Female	82 (44.6)	147 (40.1)		81 (44.5)	75 (41.2)		
Educational level, n (%)			0.480			0.764	
 Primary school	31 (16.8)	77 (21.0)		30 (16.5)	25 (13.7)		
 Junior high school	80 (43.5)	157 (42.8)		80 (44.0)	83 (45.6)		
 High school or higher	73 (39.7)	133 (36.2)		72 (39.6)	74 (40.7)		
Injury mechanism, n (%)			0.239			0.237	
 No	107 (58.2)	194 (52.9)		106 (58.2)	117 (64.3)		
 Yes	77 (41.8)	173 (47.1)		76 (41.8)	65 (35.7)		
Affected side, n (%)			0.017			1.000	
 Left	83 (45.1)	205 (55.9)		82 (45.1)	82 (45.1)		
 Right	101 (54.9)	162 (44.1)		100 (54.9)	100 (54.9)		
Fracture site, n (%)			0.653			0.520	
 Patella	50 (27.2)	82 (22.3)		49 (26.9)	56 (30.8)		
 Elbow	42 (22.8)	86 (23.4)		42 (23.1)	46 (25.3)		
 Tibil	40 (21.7)	86 (23.4)		40 (22.0)	41 (22.5)		
 Ankle	52 (14.2)	113 (30.8)		51 (28.0)	39 (21.4)		
Classification, n (%)			0.728			0.552	
 A	15 (8.2)	37 (10.1)		15 (8.2)	13 (7.1)		
 B	57 (31.0)	116 (31.6)		56 (30.8)	48 (26.4)		
 C	112 (60.9)	214 (58.3)		111 (61.0)	121 (66.5)		
Medical history, n (%)			0.140			1.000	
 No	134 (72.8)	288 (78.5)		133 (73.1)	133 (73.1)		
 Yes	50 (27.2)	79 (21.5)		49 (26.9)	49 (26.9)		
 Cancer	6 (3.3)	6 (1.6)		5 (2.7)	3 (1.6)		
  Diabetes	12 (6.5)	20 (5.4)		12 (6.6)	11 (6.0)		
 Chronic kidney disease	2 (1.1)	1 (0.3)		2 (1.1)	1 (0.5)		
 Pulmonary disease	3 (1.6)	7 (1.9)		3 (1.6)	6 (3.3)		
 Heart disease	6 (3.3)	13 (3.5)		6 (3.3)	8 (4.4)		
 Hypertension	35 (19.0)	51 (13.9)		35 (19.2)	33 (18.1)		
 Liver disease	1 (0.5)	1 (0.3)		1 (0.5)	0		
 Anaemia	4 (2.2)	6 (1.6)		4 (2.2)	6 (3.3)		
AR, augmented reality.

AR remote surgery implementation process

The portable AR remote system (Xinglian AR system; Beijing, Weizuozhiyuan) with an internet protocol–based connection comprises only two tablets with AR software installed and a stand: one remote surgical guidance terminal and one at the operative end (eFigure1 in the Supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713).

In each surgical procedure, the senior surgeon used the AR remote system to supervise junior surgeons remotely as they performed various portions of the surgical procedure. The senior surgeon transmitted gestures, notes, and instructions through the AR remote system. A movable and adjustable plate bracket was affixed to the operating bed. During surgery, a sterile protective sleeve was used to cover the bracket. In addition, a portable AR plate was covered by a transparent sterile protective film and fixed on the plate bracket (Fig. 1 and eFigures 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713 and 2, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713 in the Supplement).

Figure 1 The clinical application of the augmented reality (AR) remote system in patellar fracture surgery. (A) Experts can draw virtual incision marks through the AR remote system to guide skin incision remotely. (B) Experts guide fracture reduction remotely through AR virtual annotation. (C). Experts guide fracture internal fixation remotely through AR virtual annotation. (D) Experts transmit gesture information through AR video fusion to guide operations remotely in real time.

Following each procedure, the senior and junior surgeons completed a Likert scale questionnaire (with responses ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly agree”), assessing their opinions on the effect of the portable AR system on education, safety, and efficiency. In addition, the operating room staff (anaesthesiologist, circulating nurse, and scrub technician) completed a Likert scale questionnaire to evaluate the effect of the portable AR remote system on the surgical procedure and its perceived safety.

The operative time, blood loss, number of fluoroscopies, complications, and functional results were documented. Functional outcomes were evaluated at the 12-month follow-up using the Lysholm (patella fracture), Mayo (elbow fracture), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) (tibial plateau fracture), and Kofoed (ankle fracture) rating scales.

Statistical analysis

PSM was performed to balance the potential differences in the baseline characteristics between the AR and non-remote surgery groups for all fractures. The propensity scores were obtained using logistic regression analysis based on the patient’s sociodemographic characteristics (i.e. age, sex, body mass index, and education levels), the injury mechanism, affected side, fracture classification, and medical history. A 1:1 nearest-neighbour calliper matching, with a calliper distance of 0.02, was used to match patients based on the logit function of the propensity score21. Before and after PSM, the basic characteristics or outcome variables were compared between the AR and the non-remote surgery groups using the Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and Student’s t-test or the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables.

The non-inferiority margin was set at a 10% adjusted absolute increase in risk difference of the primary outcome in the AR remote group compared with the non-remote group22.

To assess the robustness of our results, we also performed a 1:1 PSM for the four fracture types. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 17.0 (Stata Corporation). A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The fractures among the 551 patients included those in 132 patellae, 128 elbows, 126 tibial plateaus, and 165 ankles. The mean (SD) age was 48±14.8 years, and 322 patients (58.4%) were women (Table 1). Among the 364 patients (182 patients in each group) matched by PSM, seven (3.8%) from the AR group and six (3%) from the non-remote group developed complications, with a risk difference of 0.005 and 95% CI of −0.033 to 0.044, below the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of a 10% absolute increase. A similar distribution in the individual components of all complications was observed between the AR remote and non-remote groups for ankylosis (0.5% and 0.5%, respectively), nonunion (1.1% and 0.5%), internal fixation failure (1.1% and 0.5%), loss of reduction (0.5% and 1.1%), and heterotopic ossification (1.1% and 1.1%) (Table 2). The adjusted risk difference in all complications between the two groups was 0.5% (95% CI: −3.3 to 4.4) less for the AR remote group, below the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of a 10% absolute increase. A similar distribution in the individual components of all complications was observed between the groups (Table 2).

Table 2 Analysis of complications after propensity matching score.

	AR remote group (n=182)	Non-remote group (n=182)	Risk difference (95% CI)	
Overall complications, n (%)	7 (3.8)	6 (3.0)	0.005 (−0.033 to 0.044)	
Separate components of the overall complications, n (%)	
 Intraoperative accident	0	0	—	
 Ankylosis	1 (0.5)	1 (0.5)	0 (−0.015 to 0.015)	
 Wound infection	0	0	—	
 Vasoneural injury	0	0	—	
 Nonunion	2 (1.1)	1 (0.5)	0.005 (−0.013 to0.024)	
 Internal fixation failure	1 (0.5)	0	0.005 (−0.005 to 0.016)	
 Loss of reduction	1 (0.5)	2 (1.1)	−0.005 (−0.024 to 0.013)	
 Heterotopic ossification	2 (1.1)	2 (1.1)	0 (−0.021 to 0.021)	
AR, augmented reality.

Patella fracture

Following PSM, a hierarchical analysis was performed in 105 patients with patella fractures (49 AR remote; 56 non-remote). Compared with non-remote surgery, AR remote surgery showed no statistical difference in operative time (99.55±42.74 vs. 96.63±39.46 min, P=0.65), amount of bleeding (17.63±4.51 vs. 16.86±4.67 ml, P=0.50), number of fluoroscopies (7.86±1.51 vs. 7.71±1.46, P=0.65), injury surgery interval (4.04±2.50 vs. 4.30±2.38 d, P=0.46), complications (4.1% vs. 3.6%, P=0.89), and Lysholm functional results (92.73±3.90 vs. 92.77±4.11, P=0.96) (Fig. 2 and eTable 1 in the Supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713).

Figure 2 Comparison of operative time, blood loss, fluoroscopy number, functional results, and injury surgery intervals between the augmented reality remote and non-remote groups after propensity score matching. (A) After propensity score matching for all fractures. (B) After propensity score matching for patella fractures. (C) After propensity score matching for elbow fractures. (D) After propensity score matching for tibial plateau fractures. (E). After matching scores for ankle fractures.

Elbow fracture

Following PSM, a hierarchical analysis was performed in 88 patients with elbow fractures (42 AR remote; 46 non-remote). Compared with non-remote surgery, AR remote surgery showed no statistical difference in operative time (185.45±74.15 vs. 175.09±78.10 min, P=0.55), amount of bleeding (197.52±42.7 vs. 202.33±55.21 ml, P=0.84), number of fluoroscopies (10.62±0.96 vs. 10.80±0.98, P=0.25), injury surgery interval (6.93±3.17 vs. 6.72±3.22 days, P=0.87), complications (4.8% vs. 4.3%, P=0.93), and Mayo functional results (82.95±4.36 vs. 82.35±4.72, P=0.55) (Fig. 2 and eTable 2 in the Supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713).

Tibial plateau fracture

Following PSM, a hierarchical analysis was performed in 81 patients with tibial plateau fractures (40 AR remote; 41 non-remote). Compared with non-remote surgery, AR remote surgery showed no statistical difference in operative time (136.40±67.15 vs. 135.90±13.17 min, P=0.97), amount of bleeding (190.25±47.34 vs. 191.83±42.77 ml, P=0.80), number of fluoroscopies (9.45±2.37 vs. 9.46±1.99, P=0.62), injury surgery interval (5.05±2.57 vs. 5.66±2.81 days, P=0.35), complications (2.5% vs. 2.4%, P=0.99), and HSS functional results (86.98±2.49 vs. 86.37±1.41, P=0.16) (Fig. 2 and eTable 3 in the Supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713).

Ankle fracture

Following PSM, a hierarchical analysis was performed in 90 patients with ankle fractures (51 AR remote; 39 non-remote). Compared with non-remote surgery, AR remote surgery showed no statistical difference in operative time (132.10±48.85 vs. 129.82±48.87 min, P=0.59), amount of bleeding (87.82±30.10 vs. 85.64±27.46 ml, P=0.76), number of fluoroscopies (6.71±1.03 vs. 6.64±1.06, P=0.79), injury surgery interval (6.43±3.46 vs. 5.72±3.36 days, P=0.33), complications (3.9% vs. 2.6%, P=0.72), and Kofoed functional results (89.33±2.87 vs. 89.31±2.77, P=0.84) (Fig. 2 and eTable 4 in the Supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713).

A 1:1 PSM was performed in patients according to the fracture type: 92 patellae (46 AR remote; 46 non-remote), 62 elbows (31 AR remote; 31 non-remote), 58 tibial plateaus (29 AR remote; 29 non-remote), and 92 ankles (46 AR remote; 46 non-remote). Compared with non-remote surgery, the AR remote group showed no statistical difference in operative time, blood loss, fluoroscopy number, complications, and functional results (eFigure 3 and eFigure 4).

The senior and junior surgeons’ Likert scale data showed generally positive results (median Likert scores: 4 to 5 or 5 to 5) for safety, efficiency, and education. Responses to questions regarding reliability, ease of use, sufficient image resolution, safety concerns, communication, understanding of instructions, increasing the surgeon’s confidence, and increasing the surgeon’s sense of security did not differ significantly between the senior and junior surgeons (P≥0.05). When asked about the presence of a perceptible time lag between motions, the mean score for the junior surgeons was 4.32±0.64 compared with 4.47±0.55 for the senior surgeons (P=0.01). Although these mean scores were significantly different, 95% of the junior surgeons’ responses and 98% of the senior surgeons’ responses indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with the statement that a perceptible lag occurred between motions (Fig. 3 and eTable 5 in the Supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713). The staff survey results (Fig. 3 and eTable 6 in the Supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JS9/C713) suggested that the AR did not interfere with efficiency or compromise safety (median Likert scores: 4 to 5).

Figure 3 Surgeon and operative staff Likert scale questionnaire scores.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first to report on an AR system with a screen located directly in the surgical visual field for remote guidance during fracture surgery. Our study provides primary clinical evidence regarding this domain. This study presents evidence suggesting that AR remote fracture surgery is as safe and effective as that performed by a specialist in person. In addition, this method appears to enhance the skills and increase the confidence of junior surgeons. The risk difference in all complications between groups favoured telemonitoring and was less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin. This technique is a promising new medical care model utilising AR remote for fracture surgery, educational purposes, and other open surgical procedures, potentially mitigating the challenges of inadequate medical care in remote areas.

Initially introduced in the 1990s, AR superimposes virtual images onto reality or enhances the virtual world by integrating digital elements into the real world, blending the two, and aligning their positions instantaneously16. Compared with the traditional video and voice mode, the AR remote mode allows for implementing remote surgical guidance more accurately, quickly, and effectively. The use of AR remote in orthopaedic surgery has been reported only for long-distance education in shoulder arthroscopy via the endoscopy system and one case involving shoulder replacement patients via Google Glass. In addition, studies have used AR glasses for remote lumbar arthrodesis in patients with lumbar degeneration9,11,13,19. To date, no study has documented using AR remote technology in fracture surgery. In our new AR remote system, the screen is positioned directly in the operating visual field using an adjustable stent at the operating end. This integration aligns the surgeon’s field of view with the AR virtual remote guidance field, enabling real-time remote guidance for fracture surgery. During the operation, surgeons can instantaneously transmit remote virtual guidance commands while utilising real-time annotation, sketching, measurement, and posture information transfer. Thus, with its real-time capabilities, we strongly believe that this innovative remote mode surpasses previous remote methods in efficacy for guiding fracture surgeries remotely. The technology also facilitates long-distance travel medicine, even animal medical education, especially during the 2019 coronavirus outbreak, highlighting its importance23,24.

For this AR remote system, experts need only a tablet to execute remote guidance anytime or anywhere. The remote mode is very simple and practical; the receiver surgeon in the operating room requires only a tablet and support. Junior surgeons will be able to perform independent operations under the supervision and guidance of experts. This approach increases the junior surgeon’s confidence level, provides a sense of security, and enables more opportunities for practical practice. Both junior and senior experts strongly believe this new remote mode helps cultivate the growth of young doctors. Our analyses showed no difference in surgical time, amount of blood loss, and functional outcomes in treating patellar, tibial plateau, ankle, or elbow fractures when comparing junior surgeons who received remote proctoring and senior surgeons who performed surgeries without remote assistance. These results are consistent with previous studies that explored remote surgery guidance using the AR endoscopic system for arthroscopy, further substantiating its efficacy9,13. Through this remote mode, patients in areas with poor medical care can receive optimal treatment while avoiding the associated risks and costs of traditional transportation and the inconvenience of requiring medical care escorts. Neither medical care providers nor patients need to travel long distances, saving time, physical strength, and economic costs. Thus, this portable remote mode provides a new strategy to solve the medical care disparities.

Although this study yielded a promising result, our analysis focused mainly on the fracture of the limbs; further research is needed for the fracture of the spine, pelvis, and other parts. Randomised controlled trials with larger samples will be necessary to corroborate these findings. In addition, future studies must consider remote surgery’s legal norms and communication networks. A reliable network communication environment is essential for implementing remote surgery. Fourth-generation networks showed occasional instability in our study, underscoring the need to incorporate fifth-generation technology in future endeavours.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this novel AR remote can allow senior surgeons to remotely guide junior surgeons effectively, safely, and efficiently during fracture surgery with similar results, without the specialist being physically present. It could also help junior surgeons develop the necessary surgical skills and confidence. This technique is a promising new model for remote instruction and education in fracture surgery and other open surgeries, addressing the challenge of inadequate medical care in remote areas.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB number 2022087501).

Consent

The IRB approved the waiver of the participants’ consent.

Source of funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.NO.82172524), Major Technology Innovation of Hubei Province(Grant No.NO.2021BEA161 ).

Author contribution

All authors conceived and designed the trial. S.L., M.X., F.G., Y.F. and M.X. ran the clinical study and collected the data. S.L., M.X., F.G., H.-G.C.. A.Y., and Z.Y. drafted the manuscript and all authors edited the manuscript. All authors had access to all of the data in the study and conducted the statistical analysis. Z.Y., H.-G.C., and A.Y. had the final responsibility to submit for publication.

Conflicts of interest disclosure

The authors declare no competing interests.

Research registration unique identifying number (UIN)

This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300075384.

Guarantor

Zhewei Ye.

Data availability statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned, externally peer-reviewed.

Supplementary Material

S.L., M.X., and F.G. contributed equally to this work and are first authors.

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's website, www.lww.com/international-journal-of-surgery.

Published online 4 June 2024
==== Refs
References

1 Meara JG Leather AJM Hagander L . Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet 2015;386 (9993 ):569–624.25924834
2 Owolabi EO Mac Quene T Louw J . Telemedicine in surgical care in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. World J Surg 2022;46 :1855–1869.35428920
3 Cui F He X Zhai Y . Application of telemedicine services based on a regional telemedicine platform in China from 2014 to 2020: longitudinal trend analysis. J Med Internet Res 2021;23 :e28009.34255686
4 Maurice AP Punnasseril JEJ King SE . Improving access to bariatric surgery for rural and remote patients: experiences from a state-wide bariatric telehealth service in Australia. Obes Surg 2020;30 :4401–4410.32617921
5 Gunter RL Chouinard S Fernandes-Taylor S . Current use of telemedicine for post-discharge surgical care: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg 2016;222 :915–927.27016900
6 El-Sabawi B Magee III W III . The evolution of surgical telementoring: current applications and future directions. Ann Transl Med 2016;4 :391.27867943
7 Bullard TB Rosenberg MS Ladde J . Digital images taken with a mobile phone can assist in the triage of neurosurgical patients to a level 1 trauma centre. J Telemed Telecare 2013;19 :80–83.23528786
8 Schroeder C . Pilot study of telemedicine for the initial evaluation of general surgery patients in the clinic and hospitalized settings. Surg Open Sci 2019;1 :97–99.32754700
9 Ponce BA Jennings JK Clay TB . Telementoring: use of augmented reality in orthopaedic education: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96 :e84.24875036
10 Shenai MB Dillavou M Shum C . Virtual interactive presence and augmented reality (VIPAR) for remote surgical assistance. Neurosurgery 2011;68 (1 suppl Operative) ):200–207.21304333
11 Ponce BA Menendez ME Oladeji LO . Emerging technology in surgical education: combining real-time augmented reality and wearable computing devices. Orthopedics 2014;37 :751–757.25361359
12 McCullough MC Kulber L Sammons P . Google Glass for remote surgical tele-proctoring in low- and middle-income countries: a feasibility study from Mozambique. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6 :e1999.30656104
13 Stetson WB Polinsky S Dilbeck S . The use of telesurgery mentoring and augmented reality to teach arthroscopy. Arthrosc Tech 2022;11 :e203–e207.35155114
14 Laverdière C Corban J Khoury J . Augmented reality in orthopaedics: a systematic review and a window on future possibilities. Bone Joint J 2019;101-B :1479–1488.31786992
15 Nickel F Cizmic A Chand M . Telestration and augmented reality in minimally invasive surgery: an invaluable tool in the age of COVID-19 for remote proctoring and telementoring. JAMA Surg 2022;157 :169–170.34705030
16 Abe Y Sato S Kato K . A novel 3D guidance system using augmented reality for percutaneous vertebroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;19 :492–501.23952323
17 Buvik A Bergmo TS Bugge E . Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2019;21 :e11330.30777845
18 Behmanesh A Sadoughi F Mazhar FN . Tele-orthopaedics: a systematic mapping study. J Telemed Telecare 2022;28 :3–23.32393139
19 Cofano F Di Perna G Bozzaro M . Augmented reality in medical practice: from spine surgery to remote assistance. Front Surg 2021;8 :657901.33859995
20 Mathew G Agha R for the STROCSS Group . STROCSS 2021: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Int J Surg 2021;96 :106165.34774726
21 Austin PC . Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 2011;10 :150–161.20925139
22 Bekker MN Koster MPH Keusters WR . Home telemonitoring versus hospital care in complicated pregnancies in the Netherlands: a randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial (HoTeL). Lancet Digit Health 2023;5 :e116–e124.36828605
23 Choudhary OP Priyanka . ChatGPT in travel medicine: A friend or foe? Travel Med Infect Dis 2023;54 :102615.37399881
24 Choudhary O Saini J Challana A . ChatGPT for veterinary anatomy education: an overview of the prospects and drawbacks. Int J Morphol 2023;41 :1198–1202.
