Slashdot Mirror
Bringing Surgical Robots Into the Mainsteam
The New York Times is running a story about how using robots to perform surgical operations has been transformed from a controversial dream to reality. Dr. Frederic Moll abandoned his residency for Silicon Valley and helped to revolutionize the industry. The lengthy article also discusses some of his innovations. We've discussed various robot-assisted medical procedures in the past. From the Times:
"'I was struck by the size of the incision and injury created just to get inside the body,' Dr. Moll says. 'It felt antiquated.' He took the idea to his employer, Guidant, a medical device company. Guidant decided that robotic surgery was too futuristic and too risky, so Dr. Moll rounded up backers, resigned, and in 1995, founded Intuitive Surgical. The company prospered by proving that robots could deftly handle rigid surgical tools like scalpels and sewing needles through small incisions in a patient's skin."
These machines don't have any knowledge of anatomy.
They are more like "remote control" surgeons than robot surgeons.
It's basically laparoscopic surgery taken to a new level of miniaturization.
analogous to fly-by-wire in planes versus old hydraulic connections.
Times are changing.
An example is the defibrillator. It used to be that only medical professionals were able to purchase/use them. Now there are several such as the Phillips HeartStart that are sold on Amazon. The units are designed so that the average idiot can use them. Slap the pads on the victim's chest, hit the big button, and the unit figures out if the victim needs a shock, and if so gives it. Otherwise it doesn't.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
These are not robots. These are medical telepresence devices. They have no artificial intelligence or autonomy at all; they are intended to provide the surgeon with tiny hands and eyes in places they could not otherwise reach.
They are cool machines, but they are not robots.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
My word, this guy brings shame to the profession. I hope I never run into you professionally if you are indeed a surgeon. Where are you located (region is ok) -- I am interested to know how you have such cemented views.
To fellow slashdotters, this guy represents only a (hopefully small) subset of the surgical mindset. Early on in medical school I met some a$$hole surgeons who threw tools in the OR and abused staff and residents, and have terrible stories I could tell. Nevertheless, it is far from universal. Some of the best surgeons I met and know are great people, who are definitely not in surgery for money or "prestige," and who were ivy-league educated (as I am) and could have gone to a more lucrative and "prestigious" investment banking job on wall street.
I trained at MGH (Boston) almost a decade ago and there was the entire gamut -- true terrible assholes who felt that they were so good that they had to be assholes, and good surgeons that were good people. I have never really seen a strong correlation between the two as the poster above suggests. There are always the straw arguments that he presents (e.g. would you rather go to a good asshole or a bad nice guy?) Well, how about a good, nice surgeon? Fortunately, they do exist. Even as such, I'm sure my pedigree is better than this poster (I don't have to prove myself and am not obviously as obsessed with "prestige".) Funny thing is I bet I have seen him before as the CT surgery world is not that big and I've presented at major meetings in the past.
Since moving on to a private practice hospital affiliated group, I like to think of myself as having elite skills and the fortune of not being a jerk. All of the guys in my group are people I would (and have) sent my relatives, or enjoy a round of golf with after work.
So, don't fuel any negative views with this guy's flamebaits. Surgeons are people - some good, some not so good, in both skill and attitude.
This is correct. I've been in the OR for open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries. The advantages to the robot, versus standard laparoscopy include: 1) The robotic instruments have numerous articulated joints (i.e. wrists) whereas laparoscopic instruments are straight and more unwieldy in some circumstances. 2) The robotic camera is high-definition and stereoscopic, so the surgeon can see everything in three dimensions, adding additional safety beyond laparoscopy.
The robots are not a panacea - don't bother asking your surgeon to perform a transplant robotically - but under certain circumstances, they make operations easier and safer. An excellent example is when the prostate is removed for cancer. The robot makes it much easier to operate in the pelvis, which is normally an awkward region of the body to access.