EPIDEMIOLOGY AND HEALTH DATA INSIGHTS
Review Article
Jan 21, 2026 330 258

Telemedicine and Remote Proctoring in Surgery: Current Trends, Evidence, and Future Directions

Peter Aduvie Josiah 1 * ,
Olukunle O. Akanbi 2,
Benjamin Chidera Aghaonu 3
1 Department of Medicine and Surgery, College of Health Sciences, Niger Delta University, Bayelsa state, Nigeria 2 Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, National Louis University, FL, USA3 Department of Medicine and Surgery, College of Medicine, Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation, Pangasinan, Philippines * Corresponding Author
Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, 2(1), 2026, ehdi027, https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/17769
Publication date: Jan 21, 2026
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Telemedicine has become a vital element of modern surgical practice, facilitating virtual consultations, intraoperative collaboration, and postoperative monitoring. One of its most innovative applications is remote proctoring, or teleproctoring—the real-time supervision and assistance of surgical procedures across distances. The COVID-19 epidemic has accelerated the impact of these technologies on surgical education, credentialing, and global access to specialized expertise. This narrative review synthesizes literature from 2005 to 2025 obtained from PubMed, ResearchGate, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The emphasis includes telemedicine and remote proctoring in surgical care, education, and quality assurance. Chosen materials comprise original investigations, systematic reviews, and policy documents that pertain to technical platforms, clinical outcomes, educational applications, implementation issues, and regulatory considerations.  Modern teleproctoring technologies include secure, low-latency, high-definition video broadcasts enhanced by augmented reality features and telestration capabilities. The available evidence, primarily from observational studies, confirms the approach's viability, cost-effectiveness, improved training efficiency, and high user acceptance across disciplines such as minimally invasive, robotic, and endoscopic surgery. However, inconsistencies in outcome measurements, a lack of randomized controlled trials, and varying legal frameworks restrict wider applicability. The safety profiles appear promising, yet data deficiencies remain. Telemedicine and remote proctoring are developing into integral components of surgical care. Essential future directions include the implementation of artificial intelligence solutions, the development of standardized outcome metrics, the execution of comparative research, the enhancement of cybersecurity measures, and the promotion of fair access in resource-constrained settings. When integrated within strong regulatory and ethical frameworks, remote proctoring has the potential to function as a fundamental pillar of efficient and interconnected global surgical practice.

KEYWORDS

Telemedicine Remote Proctoring Augmented Reality (AR) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Telestration

CITATION (Vancouver)

Josiah PA, Akanbi OO, Aghaonu BC. Telemedicine and Remote Proctoring in Surgery: Current Trends, Evidence, and Future Directions. Epidemiology and Health Data Insights. 2026;2(1):ehdi027. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/17769
APA
Josiah, P. A., Akanbi, O. O., & Aghaonu, B. C. (2026). Telemedicine and Remote Proctoring in Surgery: Current Trends, Evidence, and Future Directions. Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, 2(1), ehdi027. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/17769
Harvard
Josiah, P. A., Akanbi, O. O., and Aghaonu, B. C. (2026). Telemedicine and Remote Proctoring in Surgery: Current Trends, Evidence, and Future Directions. Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, 2(1), ehdi027. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/17769
AMA
Josiah PA, Akanbi OO, Aghaonu BC. Telemedicine and Remote Proctoring in Surgery: Current Trends, Evidence, and Future Directions. Epidemiology and Health Data Insights. 2026;2(1), ehdi027. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/17769
Chicago
Josiah, Peter Aduvie, Olukunle O. Akanbi, and Benjamin Chidera Aghaonu. "Telemedicine and Remote Proctoring in Surgery: Current Trends, Evidence, and Future Directions". Epidemiology and Health Data Insights 2026 2 no. 1 (2026): ehdi027. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/17769
MLA
Josiah, Peter Aduvie et al. "Telemedicine and Remote Proctoring in Surgery: Current Trends, Evidence, and Future Directions". Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, vol. 2, no. 1, 2026, ehdi027. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/17769

REFERENCES

  1. Jin MX, Kim SY, Miller LJ, Behari G, Correa R. Telemedicine: current impact on the future. Cureus. 2020;12(8):e9891. doi:10.7759/cureus.9891.
  2. Tuckson RV, Edmunds M, Hodgkins ML. Telehealth. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(16):1585–92. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1503323.
  3. Asiri A, AlBishi S, AlMadani W, ElMetwally A, Househ M. The use of telemedicine in surgical care: a systematic review. Acta Inform Med. 2018;26(3):201–6. doi:10.5455/aim.2018.26.201-206.
  4. McMaster T, Wright T, Mori K, Stelmach W, To H. Current and future use of telemedicine in surgical clinics during and beyond COVID-19: a narrative review. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021;66:102378. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102378.
  5. Kamdar NV, Huverserian A, Jalilian L, Thi W, Duval V, Beck L, et al. Development, implementation, and evaluation of a telemedicine preoperative evaluation initiative at a major academic medical center. Anesth Analg. 2020;131(6):1647–56. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005208.
  6. Williams AM, Bhatti UF, Alam HB, Nikolian VC. The role of telemedicine in postoperative care. mHealth. 2018;4:11. doi:10.21037/mhealth.2018.04.03.
  7. Subbiah Ponniah H, Shah V, Arjomandi Rad A, Vardanyan R, Miller G, Malawana J. Theatres without borders: a systematic review of the use of intraoperative telemedicine in low- and middle-income countries. BMJ Innov. 2021;7(4):657–68. doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000837.
  8. Haleem A, Javaid M, Singh RP, Suman R. Telemedicine for healthcare: capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sens Int. 2021;2:100117. doi:10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100117.
  9. Bechstein M, Buhk JH, Frölich AM, Broocks G, Hanning U, Erler M. Interhospital teleproctoring of endovascular intracranial aneurysm treatment using a dedicated live-streaming technology: first experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Neurointerv Surg. 2021;13(2):e1. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-E1.
  10. Ghomrawi HMK, Holl JL, Abdullah F. Telemedicine in surgery—beyond a pandemic adaptation. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(10):901–2. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.2052.
  11. Haran C, Allan P, Dholakia J, Lai S, Lim E, Xu W, et al. The application and uses of telemedicine in vascular surgery: a narrative review. Semin Vasc Surg. 2024;37(3):290–7. doi:10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2024.07.004.
  12. Lu ES, Reppucci VS, Houston SKS 3rd, Kras AL, Miller JB. Three-dimensional telesurgery and remote proctoring over a 5G network. Digit J Ophthalmol. 2021;27(3):38–43. doi:10.5693/djo.01.2021.06.003.
  13. Paquette S, Lin JC. Outpatient telemedicine program in vascular surgery reduces patient travel time, cost, and environmental pollutant emissions. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;59:167–72. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2019.01.021.
  14. Nittari G, Khuman R, Baldoni S, Pallotta G, Battineni G, Sirignano A, et al. Telemedicine practice: review of the current ethical and legal challenges. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26(12):1427–37. doi:10.1089/tmj.2019.0158.
  15. El-Sabawi B, Magee W 3rd. The evolution of surgical telementoring: current applications and future directions. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(20):391. doi:10.21037/atm.2016.10.04.
  16. Wikipedia contributors. Lindbergh operation. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; 2025 Oct 9 [cited 2025 Oct 24]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindbergh_operation.
  17. Dream S, Kuo JH, Wang TS. Virtual interactive presence, a novel approach to remote proctoring for the adoption of innovative technologies and interventions. Am J Surg. 2022;223(3):600–2. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.09.007.
  18. Hassan AE, Desai SK, Georgiadis AL, Tekle WG. Augmented reality–enhanced teleproctoring to intraoperatively support a neuro-endovascular surgery fellow. Interv Neuroradiol. 2022;28(3):277–82. doi:10.1177/15910199211035304.
  19. AMA XpertEye. Remote medical proctoring and the evolution of the digital operating theatre. 2023 [cited 2025 Oct 24]. Available from: https://blog.amaxperteye.com/remote-proctoring-and-the-evolution-of-the-digital-operating-theater/.
  20. Wild C, Lang F, Gerhäuser AS, Schmidt MW, Kowalewski KF, Petersen J, et al. Telestration with augmented reality for visual presentation of intraoperative target structures in minimally invasive surgery: a randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(10):7453–61. doi:10.1007/s00464-022-09158-1.
  21. Kuboki D, Kawahira H, Maeda Y, Oiwa K, Unoki T, Lefor AK, et al. Online feedback system for laparoscopic training during the COVID-19 pandemic: evaluation from the trainer perspective. Heliyon. 2022;8(8):e10303. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10303.
  22. Cizmic A, Häberle F, Wise PA, Müller F, Gabel F, Mascagni P, et al. Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view annotation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy training: randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc. 2024;38(6):3241–52. doi:10.1007/s00464-024-10843-6.
  23. Rama E, Zuberi S, Aly M, Askari A, Iqbal FM. Clinical outcomes of passive sensors in remote monitoring: a systematic review. Sensors. 2025;25(11):3285. doi:10.3390/s25113285.
  24. von Hessling A, Reyes del Castillo T, Roos JE, Karwacki GM. Technical considerations and tips for using the Tegus remote proctoring system in elective and emergency cases. J Neurointerv Surg. 2022;14(10):976–8. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018401.
  25. Ichihashi T, Hirabayashi Y, Nagahara M. Potential utility of a 4K consumer camera for surgical education in ophthalmology. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:4374521. doi:10.1155/2017/4374521.
  26. Huang XY, Shao Z, Zhong NN, Wen YH, Wu TF, Liu B, et al. Comparative analysis of GoPro and digital cameras in head and neck flap harvesting surgery video documentation. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24:531. doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05510-2.
  27. Maddela S. Integration of electronic health records with modern healthcare systems: technical overview. Int J Comput Eng Technol. 2025;16(1):295–305. doi:10.34218/IJCET_16_01_027.
  28. Dhole S. Mastering HIPAA compliance in telemedicine: secure remote healthcare delivery in 2025. TrustCloud; 2025 Aug 3 [cited 2025 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.trustcloud.ai/hipaa/mastering-hipaa-compliance-in-telemedicine-secure-remote-healthcare-delivery-in-2025/.
  29. Jarc AM, Shah SH, Adebar T, Hwang E, Aron M, Gill IS, et al. Beyond 2D telestration: evaluation of novel proctoring tools for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(2):103–9. doi:10.1007/s11701-016-0564-1.
  30. Augestad KM, Lindsetmo RO. Overcoming distance: video-conferencing as a clinical and educational tool among surgeons. World J Surg. 2009;33(7):1356–63. doi:10.1007/s00268-009-0036-0.
  31. Irshad A, Bechara C, Bismuth J, Chinnadurai P, Yenugu N, Lumsden AB. Remote proctoring and assessment of endovascular skills: first experience in vascular surgery and training. Ann Vasc Surg. 2026;34:232–9. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2016.05.075.
  32. De’Ath HD, Devoto L, Mehta C, Bromilow J, Qureshi T. Mentored trainees have similar short-term outcomes to a consultant trainer following laparoscopic colorectal resection. World J Surg. 2017;41(7):1896–902. doi:10.1007/s00268-017-3925-7.
  33. Chepkoech M, Malila B, Mwangama J. Telementoring for surgical training in low-resource settings: a systematic review of current systems and the emerging role of 5G, AI, and XR. J Robot Surg. 2025;19(1):525. doi:10.1007/s11701-025-02703-9.
  34. Owolabi EO, Mac Quene T, Louw J, Davies JI, Chu KM. Telemedicine in surgical care in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. World J Surg. 2022;46(8):1855–69. doi:10.1007/s00268-022-06549-2.
  35. Chukwudi C, Singh R, Faggion Vinholo T, Grobman B, Udeh P, Sabe A, et al. Surgical outcomes following telehealth preoperative evaluation in elective cardiac surgery. JTCVS Open. 2025;26:138–46. doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2025.06.010.
  36. Gani A, Pickering O, Ellis C, Sabri O, Pucher P. Impact of haptic feedback on surgical training outcomes: a randomized controlled trial of haptic versus non-haptic immersive virtual reality training. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;83:104734. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104734.
  37. Colan J, Davila A, Hasegawa Y. Tactile feedback in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review. Int J Med Robot. 2024;20(6):e70019. doi:10.1002/rcs.70019.
  38. Bergholz M, Ferle M, Weber BM. The benefits of haptic feedback in robot-assisted surgery and their moderators: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):19215. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-46641-8.
  39. Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, Tran L, Vela J, Brooks M. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016242. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016242.
  40. Mao RQ, Lan L, Kay J, Lohre R, Ayeni OR, Goel DP, et al. Immersive virtual reality for surgical training: a systematic review. J Surg Res. 2021;268(Suppl 1):40–58. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2021.06.045.
  41. EnFuse Solutions. How online proctoring helps the healthcare industry. 2023 Jun 16 [cited 2025 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.enfuse-solutions.com/how-online-proctoring-helps-the-healthcare-industry/.
  42. Rods & Cones. What are the benefits of remote surgical proctoring? 2025 Jul 23 [cited 2025 Oct 24]. Available from: https://rods-cones.com/benefits-of-remote-surgical-proctoring-smart-glasses/.
  43. Wongworawat MD, Incrocci M, Crumlish CF, Klena J. Effect of remote proctoring of the orthopaedic in-training examination on scores. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022;6(2):e21.00225. doi:10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00225.
  44. Veneziano D, Hananel DM. Training and credentialing laparoscopic and robotic surgery. In: Smith AD, Badlani GH, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, editors. Smith's Textbook of Endourology. 4th ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2019. p. 887–900. doi:10.1002/9781119245193.ch75.
  45. Shapiro WH, Huang T, Shaw T, Roland JT Jr, Lalwani AK. Remote intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implant surgery is feasible and efficient. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29(4):495–8. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181692838p.
  46. Abraham J, Meng A, Holzer KJ, Brawer L, Casarella A, Avidan M, et al. Exploring patient perspectives on telemedicine monitoring within the operating room. Int J Med Inform. 2021;156:104595. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104595.
  47. Torabi J, Abeshouse M, Giibwa A, Okello D, Bakaleke M, Waye JD, et al. Remote training and teleproctoring in gastrointestinal endoscopy for practicing surgeons in rural Uganda. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(11):8785–90. doi:10.1007/s00464-023-10338-w.
  48. Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2):e11330. doi:10.2196/11330.
  49. Califano G, Di Bello F, Collà Ruvolo C, Morra S, Polverino F, Creta M, et al. Proctoring in robot-assisted urologic surgery: insights from a multicenter survey. J Robot Surg. 2025;19(1):352. doi:10.1007/s11701-025-02541-9.
  50. Artsen AM, Burkett LS, Duvvuri U, Bonidie M. Surgeon satisfaction and outcomes of tele-proctoring for robotic gynecologic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(3):563–8. doi:10.1007/s11701-021-01280-x.
  51. Ascione G, Rossini G, Schiavi D, Azzola G, Saccocci M, Buzzatti N, et al. Remote proctoring during structural heart procedures using mixed reality. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2024;104(5):1037–43. doi:10.1002/ccd.31187.
  52. Woitek FJ, Haussig S, Mierke J, Linke A, Mangner N. Remote proctoring for high-risk coronary interventions with mechanical circulatory support during COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Clin Res Cardiol. 2021;110(9):1525–30. doi:10.1007/s00392-021-01890-3.
  53. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Project ECHO. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; [cited 2025 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/patient-safety/settings/multiple/project-echo/index.html.
  54. McGillion MH, Parlow J, Borges FK, Marcucci M, Jacka M, Adili A, et al. Post-discharge after surgery virtual care with remote automated monitoring (PVC-RAM-1) versus standard care: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2021;374:n2209. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2209.
  55. Jafleh EA, Alnaqbi FA, Almaeeni HA, Faqeeh S, Alzaabi MA, Al Zaman K. Role of wearable devices in chronic disease monitoring: a comprehensive review. Cureus. 2024;16(9):e68921. doi:10.7759/cureus.68921.
  56. Snoswell CL, Stringer H, Taylor ML, Caffery LJ, Smith AC. Effect of telehealth on mortality: overview of systematic review meta-analyses. J Telemed Telecare. 2023;29(9):659–68. doi:10.1177/1357633X211023700.
  57. Hudise JY, Mojiri ME, Shawish AM, Majrashi KA, Ayoub AY, Alshammakhi AM, et al. Role of virtual reality in advancing surgical training in otolaryngology: systematic review. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e71222. doi:10.7759/cureus.71222.
  58. Alici F, Buerkle B, Tempfer CB. OSATS evaluation of hysteroscopy training: a prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;178:1–5. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.04.032.
  59. Mahajan A, Hawkins A. Current implementation outcomes of digital surgical simulation in low- and middle-income countries: scoping review. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e23287. doi:10.2196/23287.
  60. Ismail M, Muthana A, Al-Ageely TA, Ahmed FO, Al-Taie RH, Al-Khafaji AO, et al. Teleproctoring in therapeutic neurointervention: Iraq–Saudi Arabia collaboration experience. Surg Neurol Int. 2024;15:280. doi:10.25259/SNI_440_2024.
  61. Musella M, Martines G, Berardi G, Picciariello A, Trigiante G, Vitiello A. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic: remote coaching in bariatric surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022;407(7):2763-2767. doi:10.1007/s00423-022-02612-7.
  62. Augestad KM, Bellika JG, Budrionis A, Chomutare T, Lindsetmo R-O, Patel H, Delaney C; Mobile Medical Mentor (M3) Project Group. Surgical telementoring in knowledge translation—clinical outcomes and educational benefits: a comprehensive review. Surg Innov. 2013;20(3):273-281. doi:10.1177/1553350612465793.
  63. Rosales A, Zorrilla-Núñez L, Lo Menzo E, Rosenthal RJ. Teleproctoring in surgery training: responsibility and liability. In: Didelot G, editor. Quality in Obesity Treatment. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 345–51. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25173-4_37.
  64. Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM, et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring, and medicolegal risks in robotic urological surgery: SURG consensus. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1126–32. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.042.
  65. Jafar U, Usama M, Hase NE, Yaseen H, Nayyar A, Rabinowitz JB, et al. Conflicts of interest in robotics studies in GI and abdominal wall surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2024;238(1):54–60. doi:10.1097/XCS.0000000000000871.
  66. Kyei KA, Onajah GN, Daniels J. Telemedicine in low–middle-income countries: challenges and opportunities. Ecancermedicalscience. 2024;18:1679. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2024.1679.
  67. Msheik L, Barakat M, Hamdar H, Fakih N, Ibrahim K, Jaber J. Challenges facing telemedicine in low-income countries. Electron J Med Dent Stud. 2023;13(4):em0107. doi:10.29333/ejmds/13779.
  68. Simbo Inc. Telehealth reimbursement challenges: navigating policies and barriers. Cambridge (MA): Simbo AI; 2025 Nov [cited 2025 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.simbo.ai/blog/telehealth-reimbursement-challenges-navigating-policies-and-barriers-to-widespread-adoption-2929828/.
  69. Anandari D, Kurniawan A, Gamelia E. Enablers and barriers of telemedicine in Indonesia: systematic review. Public Health Nurs. 2025;42(4):1575–84. doi:10.1111/phn.13552.
  70. Chehab LZ, Mettupalli D, Cevallos JR, Rogine C, Sammann A, Kumar S. Designing equitable telehealth solutions for outpatient surgical care: a human-centered design approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025;25:236. doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12215-9.
  71. Li Y, Raison N, Ourselin S, Mahmoodi T, Dasgupta P, Granados A. AI solutions for overcoming delays in telesurgery and telementoring. J Robot Surg. 2024;18(1):403. doi:10.1007/s11701-024-02153-9.
  72. Leckenby E, Dawoud D, Bouvy J, Jónsson P. Sandbox approach and its potential in health technology assessment: literature review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):857–69. doi:10.1007/s40258-021-00665-1.

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.