Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Doctors To Control Robot Surgeon With Their Eyes

Posted by kdawson on from the no-saccades-please-we're-operating dept.

trogador writes "Researchers from Imperial College London are improving the Da Vinci surgical robot by installing an eye-tracker, which allows surgeons to control the robot's knife simply by looking at the patient's tissues on a screen. Tracking the eyes can generate a 3D map, which in turn can make moving organs — like a beating heart — appear to stand still for easier operation. Other features include 'see-through' tissues on the surgeon's screen (so tumors can be seen underneath tissues) and 'no-cut' zones, places where the robot won't allow the surgeon to cut by mistake. Says ICL Professor Guang Zhong Yang, 'We want to empower the robot and make it more autonomous.'"

5 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. jerky movement by wizardforce · · Score: 1, Insightful

    !!! eye movement is jerky! why oh why would you use eye movement of all things to control a surgical instrament!? good thing that the robot will limit what areas the surgeon can cut

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  2. Re:I hope they know what they're doing... by Aglassis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The human body is not a machine, and we cannot even come close to mimicking one, let alone thousands to millions. Why isn't the human body a machine? I'll grant that we can't mimic it but that doesn't mean that the systems of the body aren't mechanical in nature. Would you argue against using titanium rods to help with fractures, the use of plastic joints to replace failed joints, or other technologies that attempt to repair some mechanical failure in the body (including the use of micro-robots to perform surgery)?

    On a more ethical standpoint, being interested in Medicine and Machines myself, I feel this is going in the opposite direction of what I hope for medicine. Distancing doctors from patients, and life from reality may prove a nasty combo. Ethical? I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. You are advocating an almost superstitious view of how medicine should work. I'd be curious which ethical theory you are using to suggest that our modern advances in medicine are going in the wrong direction.
    --
    Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
  3. Re:I hope they know what they're doing... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The human body is not a machine, and we cannot even come close to mimicking one, let alone thousands to millions.

    Wasn't that the whole point with using a machine?

    A human can only hold a knife so still and accurate where a machine could cut on an accuracy scales below a millimeter.

    I mean do we build planes with wings that flap like a bird? It would make sense to build a machine that does surgery without the flaws the inherit instability of the human hand.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  4. Re:Precision? by repvik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They cut out a fair bit because they simply can't see the tumor... Cutting a safety margin comes on top of that again.

  5. Re:I hope they know what they're doing... by NIckGorton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On a more ethical standpoint, being interested in Medicine and Machines myself, I feel this is going in the opposite direction of what I hope for medicine. Distancing doctors from patients, and life from reality may prove a nasty combo. First, you need some distance. If you are in respiratory failure, I have precious little time to get you intubated and ventilated. That is not the time you want active listening and human touch. You want technical skill and someone who does not dick around. You may even want someone who has toys like this hella sexy video laryngoscope: http://medgadget.com/archives/2006/10/mcgrath_series.html

    Want.

    Of course with that I am less in touch with you physically and less likely to end up spattered in the half digested pasta, beans, or nachos that everyone who needs emergency intubation invariably eats right before they crap out. Honestly though I think we are both happier that way.

    Secondly though, the motivation for me that makes me want to save your life is the same one that makes me select the best tool for doing so. If that is a McGrath video laryngoscope (mmmmmmmmm....) or a good old fashioned Mac 4 blade then that's what I use. It would be malfeasance from my perspective if I chose the least effective means because I was a dilettante about technology.