Slashdot Mirror
Tallying the Mistakes and Malfunctions of Robot Surgeons
An anonymous reader writes: El Reg reports on a new study (PDF) that looked into malfunction and injury reports for medical procedures that used robot surgeons. From 2007 to 2013, 1.74 million such procedures were carried out, 86% of which were related to urology and gynecology. Of those, the study looked at reports of "adverse events," which were sent to the FDA. In that time period, there were 144 deaths, 1,391 patient injuries, and 8,061 device malfunctions. The malfunctions included "falling of burnt/broken pieces of instruments into the patient (14.7%), electrical arcing of instruments (10.5%), unintended operation of instruments (8.6%), system errors (5%), and video/imaging problems (2.6%)."
The more complicated surgeries involving vital organs were naturally the most dangerous. Head and neck surgeries accounted for 19.7% of all adverse results, and cardiothoracic procedures accounted for 6.4%. The much more common urology and gynecology procedures had adverse event rates of 1.4% and 1.9%. The researchers are quick to note that despite the high number of malfunctions, a vastly higher number of robotic procedures went off without a hitch. They say increased adoption of these techniques will go a long way toward resolving bugs and device failures.
The more complicated surgeries involving vital organs were naturally the most dangerous. Head and neck surgeries accounted for 19.7% of all adverse results, and cardiothoracic procedures accounted for 6.4%. The much more common urology and gynecology procedures had adverse event rates of 1.4% and 1.9%. The researchers are quick to note that despite the high number of malfunctions, a vastly higher number of robotic procedures went off without a hitch. They say increased adoption of these techniques will go a long way toward resolving bugs and device failures.
No. Robotic surgery is not the clear winner. For many procedures, robot surgery has a higher complication rate than the same procedures done without a robot.
Here's one example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/ro...
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
"Critical Outcomes in Nonrobotic vs Robotic-Assisted Cardiac Surgery"
http://www.ctsnet.org/jans/cri...
"Robotic surgery was more expensive ($39,030 vs $36,340) but was associated with a shorter length of stay (5 vs 6 days), lower mortality (1.0% vs 1.9%), and lower overall complication rates (27.2% vs 30.3%)."
When I needed to have a mitral valve repaired, I was told I was a good candidate for robotic surgery because I was relatively young and in good health otherwise. I went in Tuesday morning and left the hospital Friday afternoon, and instead of a twelve-inch scar down the middle of my chest, I have a 3.5-inch scar on my right side surrounded by three puncture wound scars (for the robotic arms). I'm glad I had the option.
That said, I'm concerned that some hospitals, having made a big investment in a surgical robot, might be tempted to get additional use out of it by adding on other procedures where the cost/benefit analysis isn't so clear.