Telesurgery represents a revolutionary milestone in medicine, allowing surgeons to perform complex procedures at a distance through advanced robotic systems. Although the first telesurgery in Brazil was performed in 2000 with a single-arm robotic platform between São Paulo and Baltimore (USA), no telesurgery had ever been conducted between two distinct Brazilian cities with a state-of-the-art robotic system. The aim is to report the first telesurgery performed between two Brazilian cities, connecting Scolla—Surgical Training Center in Campo Largo and CEONC Hospital in Cascavel, both in the state of Paraná, approximately 600 km apart, using high-performance fiber optic technology with 5G redundancy to perform robotic cholecystectomy in a swine model.
Methods:
A prospective experimental study was conducted using a 40 kg swine (Sus scrofa) as an animal model. Connectivity was established through high-speed fiber optic cable, allowing minimal latency and real-time data transmission. A robotic cholecystectomy was performed remotely, with continuous monitoring of delay parameters and connection quality.
Results:
Telesurgery was performed without complications, demonstrating the technical feasibility and safety of the procedure between two Brazilian cities. Transmission delays remained within acceptable limits for robotic surgery, and no technical or surgical complications were observed during the procedure. Image quality and responsiveness of robotic commands remained stable throughout the surgery.
Conclusion:
This study establishes a historic milestone in Brazilian medicine, demonstrating that telesurgery between Brazilian cities is technically feasible and safe. The results open promising perspectives for expanding access to specialized surgical care in remote regions of Brazil, potentially revolutionizing the distribution of medical expertise in the country and Latin America.
SaikaliS, MoschovasM, AlbalaD, et al.Society of Robotic Surgery (SRS) special meeting in 2024: Insights from the telesurgery consensus meeting. J Robotic Surg, 2025; 19(1):331; doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02514-y
3.
PatelV, CollinsJW, MarescauxJ, et al.International multi-specialty consensus statement and expert opinion of best practices in telesurgery. J Robotic Surg, 2025; 19(1):135; doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02298-1
4.
PatelV, SaikaliS, MoschovasMC, et al.Technical and ethical considerations in telesurgery. J Robot Surg, 2024; 18(1):40; doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01797-3
5.
MarescauxJ, LeroyJ, GagnerM, et al.Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature, 2001; 413(6854):379–380.
ZhengJ, WangY, ZhangJ, et al.5G ultra-remote robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in China. Surg Endosc, 2020; 34(11):5172–5180; doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07823-x
8.
DohlerM, SaikaliS, GamalA, et al.The crucial role of 5G, 6G, and fiber in robotic telesurgery. J Robotic Surg, 2024; 19(1):4; doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02164-6
9.
AnvariM, BroderickT, SteinH, et al.The impact of latency on surgical precision and task completion during robotic-assisted remote telepresence surgery. Comput Aided Surg, 2005; 10(2):93–99; doi: 10.3109/10929080500228654
10.
NankakuA, TokunagaM, YonezawaH, et al.Maximum acceptable communication delay for the realization of telesurgery. PLoS One, 2022; 17(10):e0274328.
11.
MotiwalaZY, DesaiA, BishtR, et al.Telesurgery: Current status and strategies for latency reduction. J Robotic Surg, 2025; 19(1):153; doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02333-1
12.
XuS, PerezM, YangK, et al.Determination of the latency effects on surgical performance and the acceptable latency levels in telesurgery using the dV-Trainer® simulator. Surg Endosc, 2014; 28(9):2569–2576; doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3504-z
13.
SachdevaN, KlopukhM, ClairRS, et al.Using conditional generative adversarial networks to reduce the effects of latency in robotic telesurgery. J Robot Surg, 2021; 15(4):635–641.
14.
MoriM, HiranoS, HakamadaK, et al.Clinical practice guidelines for telesurgery 2022: Committee for the promotion of remote surgery implementation. Surg Today, 2024; 54(8):817–828; doi: 10.1007/s00595-024-02863-5
15.
CollinsJW, GhaziA, StoyanovD, et al.Utilising an accelerated delphi process to develop guidance and protocols for telepresence applications in remote robotic surgery training. Eur Urol Open Sci, 2020; 22:23–33; doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.09.005
16.
HungAJ, ChenJ, ShahA, et al.Telementoring and telesurgery for minimally invasive procedures. J Urol, 2018; 199(2):355–369; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.06.082
17.
SaikaliS, Covas MoschovasM, GamalA, et al.Telesurgery: Humanitarian and surgical benefits while navigating technologic and administrative challenges. J Robot Surg, 2024; 18(1):393; doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02156-6
18.
Percie Du SertN, HurstV, AhluwaliaA, et al.The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 2020; 18(7):e3000410.
19.
SwindleMM, MakinA, HerronAJ, et al.Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol, 2012; 49(2):344–356.
20.
AgrawalGP. Fiber-Optic Communication Systems. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
21.
KimSSY, DohlerM, DasguptaP. The Internet of Skills: Use of fifth-generation telecommunications, haptics and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery. BJU Int, 2018; 122(3):356–358; doi: 10.1111/bju.14388
22.
SchefferM, CassenoteA, GuillouxAGA, et al.Demografia Médica no Brasil 2020. FMUSP, CFM: São Paulo; 2020.
23.
MoschovasMC, DohlerM, PatelV. Telesurgery: Challenges, ethical considerations, and opportunities in the robotic surgery era. Eur Urol Focus, 2025; 11(1):40–42; doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2025.02.016
24.
Covas MoschovasM, SaikaliS, RogersT, et al.Exploring the ethical implications in the telesurgery ERA. Int Braz J Urol, 2024; 50(3):375–377; doi: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2024.0133
25.
ElenduC, AmaechiDC, ElenduTC, et al.The legal and ethical considerations in cross-border telesurgical procedures. Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2025; 87(6):3660–3672; doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003344
Al AsifM, KhondokerR. Cyber Security Threat Modeling of A Telesurgery System. In: 2020 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Technologies for Industry 4.0 (STI). IEEE; 2020, pp. 1–6; doi:10.1109/STI50764.2020.9350452
28.
BonaciT, YanJ, HerronJ, et al.Experimental analysis of denial-of-service attacks on teleoperated robotic systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Sixth International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. ACM; 2015, pp. 11–20; doi: 10.1145/2735960.2735980
29.
ShahK, JadavNK, GuptaR, et al.A deep learning-orchestrated garlic routing architecture for secure telesurgery operations in healthcare 4.0. Egyptian Inform J, 2025; 30:100662.
30.
AcquafrescaPA, PalermoM, RogulaT, et al.Most common robotic bariatric procedures: Review and technical aspects. Ann Surg Innov Res, 2015; 9:9; doi: 10.1186/s13022-015-0019-9eCollection 2015
31.
García VázquezA, Rodríguez-LunaMR, VerdeJ, et al.Image-guided surgical simulation in minimally invasive liver procedures: Development of a liver tumor porcine model using a multimodality imaging assessment. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2021; 31(10):1097–1103; doi: 10.1089/lap.2021.0105
32.
CloudM. Robots are coming: A discussion of choice-of-law issues and outcomes in telesurgical malpractice. Tex A&M L Rev, 2019; 6(3):707–730; doi: 10.37419/LR.V6.I3.5
33.
ShamS, ShiwlaniS, Kirshan KumarS, et al.Empowering patients through digital health literacy and access to electronic medical records (EMRs) in the developing world. Cureus, 2024; 16(4):e57527.
34.
DavrieuxCF, PalermoM, GiménezME. Online education, was it here but we did not know? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2021:10.1089/lap.2021.0527; doi: 10.1089/lap.2021.0527
35.
BonaciT, HerronJ, YusufT, et al.To make a robot secure: An experimental analysis of cyber security threats against teleoperated surgical robots. ArXiv, 2015; doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1504.04339
36.
Rodríguez-LunaMR, VilallongaR, Roriz-SilvaR, et al.A comparison of clinical outcomes between two different models of surgical robots in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2021; 31(9):969–977; doi: 10.1089/lap.2021.0477
37.
HowardKK, MakkiH, NovotnyNM, et al.Value of robotic surgery simulation for training surgical residents and attendings: A systematic review protocol. BMJ Open, 2022; 12(6):e059439; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059439
38.
GiménezME, Garcia VazquezA, DavrieuxCF, et al.Image-guided surgical training in percutaneous hepatobiliary procedures: Development of a realistic and meaningful bile duct dilatation porcine model. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2021; 31(7):790–795; doi: 10.1089/lap.2020.0680
39.
OudaH, ElgazzarK, HassaneinHS. AI-enhanced robotic telesurgical digital twins for 6G and beyond. In: 2024 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE). IEEE; 2024, pp. 162–163; doi: 10.1109/CCECE59415.2024.10667111
40.
AyoubCH, El-AsmarJM, AbdulfattahS, et al.Telemedicine and telementoring in urology: A glimpse of the past and a leap into the future. Front Surg, 2022; 9:811749; doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.811749
41.
ParsonsJA. The telemedical imperative. Bioethics, 2021; 35(4):298–306; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12847
42.
García VazquezA, VerdeJM, Dal MasF, et al.Image-guided surgical e-learning in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era: What is next? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2020; 30(9):993–997; doi: 10.1089/lap.2020.0535
