Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Network latency is the most important factor affecting the performance of telemedicine. The aim of the study is to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a novel network latency management system in 5G telesurgery.
Methods: We conducted 20 telesurgery simulation trials (hitching rings to columns) and 15 remote adrenalectomy procedures in the 5G network environment. Telemedicine Network Latency Management System and the traditional "Ping command" method (gold standard) were used to monitor network latency during preoperative simulated telesurgery and formal telesurgery. We observed the working status of the Telemedicine Network Latency Management System and calculated the difference between the network latency data and packet loss rate detected by the two methods. In addition, due to the lower latency of the 5G network, we tested the alert function of the system using the 4G network with relatively high network latency.
Results: The Telemedicine Network Latency Management System showed no instability during telesurgery simulation trials and formal telesurgery. After 20 telesurgery simulation trials and 15 remote adrenalectomy procedures, the p-value for the difference between the network latency data monitored by the Telemedicine Network Latency Management System and the "Ping command" method was greater than 0.05 in each case. Meanwhile, the surgeons reported that the Telemedicine Network Latency Management System had a friendly interface and was easy to operate. Besides, when the network latency exceeded a set threshold, a rapid alarm sounded in the system.
Conclusion: The Telemedicine Network Latency Management System was simple and easy to operate, and it was feasible and effective to use it to monitor network latency in telesurgery. The system had an intuitive and concise interface, and its alarm function increased the safety of telesurgery. The system's own multidimensional working ability and information storage capacity will be more suitable for telemedicine work.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10585-x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!