Background Since the 1960s, there has been substantial development in the uses of video-conferencing (VC) among medical personnel, including surgeons who have adopted the technology. Methods A report on our own experience with VC was combined with a comprehensive PubMed search with the key words telepresence, video-conferencing, video-teleconferencing, telementoring and surgery, trauma, followup, education, and multidisciplinary teams. A search through two peer-reviewed telemedicine journals-Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare and Telemedicine and eHealth Journal-and references of all included papers and identified additional reports was conducted. Results A total of 517 articles were identified with 51 relevant manuscripts, which included the key phrases. VC is widely used among surgeons for telementoring surgical procedures and in trauma and emergency medicine. Furthermore, VC is widely used by multidisciplinary teams and for the follow-up of patients after surgery. Conclusions VC is a common clinical tool for surgeons and provides a great opportunity to alter surgical practice and to offer patients the best expertise in surgical treatment despite long distances, especially in rural areas.

ObjectiveTo assess whether colon cancer follow-up can be organised by general practitioners (GPs) without a decline in the patient's quality of life (QoL) and increase in cost or time to cancer diagnoses, compared to hospital follow-up.DesignRandomised controlled trial.SettingNorthern Norway Health Authority Trust, 4 trusts, 11 hospitals and 88 local communities.ParticipantsPatients surgically treated for colon cancer, hospital surgeons and community GPs.Intervention24-month follow-up according to national guidelines at the community GP office. To ensure a high follow-up guideline adherence, a decision support tool for patients and GPs were used.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were QoL, measured by the global health scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C-30) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness and time to cancer diagnoses.Results110 patients were randomised to intervention (n=55) or control (n=55), and followed by 78 GPs (942 follow-up months) and 70 surgeons (942 follow-up months), respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a significant improvement in postoperative QoL (p=0.003), but no differences between groups were revealed (mean difference at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24-month follow-up appointments): Global Health; Δ−2.23, p=0.20; EQ-5D index; Δ−0.10, p=0.48, EQ-5D VAS; Δ−1.1, p=0.44. There were no differences in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis (GP 35 days vs surgeon 45 days, p=0.46); 14 recurrences were detected (GP 6 vs surgeon 8) and 7 metastases surgeries performed (GP 3 vs surgeon 4). The follow-up programme initiated 1186 healthcare contacts (GP 678 vs surgeon 508), 1105 diagnostic tests (GP 592 vs surgeon 513) and 778 hospital travels (GP 250 vs surgeon 528). GP organised follow-up was associated with societal cost savings (£8233 vs £9889, p<0.001).ConclusionsGP-organised follow-up was associated with no decline in QoL, no increase in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis and cost savings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143.

Long-term outcomes from a national population-based rectal cancer registry are presented. Improvements in rectal cancer treatment have led to decreased recurrence rates of 5% and increased survival on a national level.