Robots as Surgeons
Are they safer? Are they cost-effective? Here is a summary from Jason Shafrin (gated):
Several observational studies have shown that compared to open surgeries, laparoscopic surgeries had fewer respiratory, miscellaneous surgical and anastomotic stricture complications in radical prostatectomy (Hu et al. 2009; Hu et al. 2008; Shih et al. 2012) However, it has also been shown that [robot-assisted radical prostatectomies] RARPs were associated with higher rates of genitourinary complications than open surgery.(Hu et al. 2009; Prasad et al. 2010) In addition, the shorter [length of stay] LOS highly publicized by Intuitive Surgical does not necessarily imply cost-saving. In fact, due to longer time spent in operation room, hospitalizations for [minimally invasive radical prostatectomy] MIRP were found to be more costly than those for [open prostatectomy] ORP. A systematic review on the cost of radical prostatectomy concluded that the cost of laparoscopic surgery was $2000 – $4000 higher than that of open surgery;(Bolenz et al. 2012) similar findings were also found in a population-based study using commercial claims data.(Shih et al. 2012) It was estimated that robotic surgery alone added $4 million to Medicare expenditures on prostate cancer.(Nguyen et al. 2011) Therefore, whether the net benefit…associated with the wide diffusion of robotic-assisted surgeries remains inclusive.
Well, medical advances always seem really costly, at least in the beginning. Robots have a good chance at assisting in certain areas and remain cost effective.
Robots in their current capacity are not cost effective. Especially when ACA come into full effect, there is no way the government/hospitals will be able to afford that.
Is our computer technology advanced enough to deal with complications in surgery etc., plus hasn’t movies like IRobot etc taught us anything?
Eventually it will certainly be advanced enough, just don’t think we’re there yet.
Haven’t seen that movie, though.
Robots will take over the world…it’s inevitable if we allow this to happen = IRobot reference.
Should we be endorsing this at all? This type of innovation will put thousands of doctors out of work.
While understand what you are getting at, if we were able to make robots cost effective…more cost effective than doctors, then we could be making medical bills smaller and benefit people health to a ridiculous extent.
Are you advocating protectionism…for doctors?
Well Protectionism has a negative connotation to it. I am advocating that we shouldn’t endorse technology if it completely destroys an industries foundation.
If we embraces that mindset we would still be in the stone-ages. We need innovation to progress towards a better quality of life.
Innovation is not a synonym for good, progress is not always good. We have to evaluate whether or not the innovation will help society or hinder it. I think it is the latter.
“We have to evaluate whether or not the innovation will help society or hinder it.”
“We?”
I think you overlook the fact that “we” does not include you.
For that matter it doesn’t include me either – but I’m fully aware of that.
The future of robotic surgery is to have a surgical team (minus the surgeon) at an American ambulatory surgery center supporting a DaVinci robot being operated from thousands of miles away by a highly-trained Indian doctor.
Nigel says:
Should we be endorsing this at all? This type of innovation will put thousands of doctors out of work.
I am advocating that we shouldn’t endorse technology if it completely destroys an industries foundation.
Surgeons are one specialty of many that physicians can pursue. If it were discovered that a computerized robot could replace surgeons for costs far lower than manual surgery, it would make sense for surgery centers to embrace the technology. Existing surgeons would find other work (as doctors) managing the process. Basically, robots such as this would drastically increase surgeons’ productivity, drive down the cost of surgery making surgery more affordable in the process.
Technology that “replaces people” tends to boost productivity.
“we shouldn’t endorse technology if it completely destroys an industries foundation”
Then I take it you don’t own a calculator, a smartphone, or a personal computer. I also assume you own a slide rule, a buckboard, and at least one horse.
Admirable, admirable.
Studebaker,
It is likely that the U.S. will see the transition faster than other countries because doctors here are so highly paid relative to their peers in other countries. It makes a lot of sense to replace their labor with capital.
ISRG’s da Vinci robotic surgery system does NOT replace the surgeon. Surgery is robot-assisted. There’s a difference.
http://youtu.be/0NZLpWrJGgk
What’s happening is very simple. The surgeons own the deVinci and overuse it to jack up their income.