Slashdot Mirror
Surgical Robots Cut Training Time Down From 80 Sessions To 30 Minutes (theguardian.com)
From a report: It is the most exacting of surgical skills: tying a knot deep inside a patient's abdomen, pivoting long graspers through keyhole incisions with no direct view of the thread. Trainee surgeons typically require 60 to 80 hours of practice, but in a mock-up operating theatre outside Cambridge, a non-medic with just a few hours of experience is expertly wielding a hook-shaped needle -- in this case stitching a square of pink sponge rather than an artery or appendix.
The feat is performed with the assistance of Versius, the world's smallest surgical robot, which could be used in NHS operating theatres for the first time later this year if approved for clinical use. Versius is one of a handful of advanced surgical robots that are predicted to transform the way operations are performed by allowing tens or hundreds of thousands more surgeries each year to be carried out as keyhole procedures. The Versius robot cuts down the time required to learn to tie a surgical knot from more than 100 training sessions, when using traditional manual tools, to just half an hour, according to Slack.
The feat is performed with the assistance of Versius, the world's smallest surgical robot, which could be used in NHS operating theatres for the first time later this year if approved for clinical use. Versius is one of a handful of advanced surgical robots that are predicted to transform the way operations are performed by allowing tens or hundreds of thousands more surgeries each year to be carried out as keyhole procedures. The Versius robot cuts down the time required to learn to tie a surgical knot from more than 100 training sessions, when using traditional manual tools, to just half an hour, according to Slack.
If anyone read the summary and is wondering why Slack is mentioned as an authority here, Slack is the last name of one of the doctors involved, not a crappy IRC replacement.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
My point is that it doesn't take anything like 60 hours of training to learn how to tie a knot blindfolded. Surgical "robots" (really, they are just manipulator arms, or waldoes) make surgery a lot more expensive, but they really don't offer much. Standard laparoscopy is much faster and just as good for the vast majority of procedures. There are some cases where the extra expense might be justified (prostatectomies come to mind here), but usually? No.
It's all about billing. Example: hysterectomies are a pretty common procedure. Unless you have abnormal anatomy, you can have your uterus removed through your vagina. Zero visible incisions, and it's a quick procedure. But it doesn't pay at all - the surgeon can get more money for doing it laparoscopically and leaving you with scars (and usually taking longer to do it). It also costs the hospital more money in supplies (and they don't get paid extra for that).
Just an FYI, if your wife wants her uterus out (let's face it, if there ever were women here, they're almost all gone), find someone who will do it transvaginally. Easier recovery, no scars.
Surgical robots are electro-mechanical systems that are manually controlled by the doctor using controllers. They dampen movements to turn human hand movements into finely controlled robotic movements. This isn't Star Wars and surgical droids don't perform the operation autonomously. For the google-impaired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's why I think the arguments about "public" or "private" are rather silly...... It's better to evaluate individual proposals to see what is better.
No, that's exactly why a public system works better - they're your patients whether you like it or not, always and forever. The primary reason the US needs to spend twice as much to have the same level of healthcare is that everyone is trying to cherry pick profitable patients and get rid of unprofitable patients, with hospitals billing for things you don't really need while insurance companies work to avoid paying claims. Health insurance is not like fire insurance or auto insurance where you either had a fire/crash or you didn't. Bad health comes crawling with risk factors, precursors, complications, good and bad periods and chronic issues people live with and insurance companies are trying to pick up the warning flags and get rid of you.
In the public system, single payer basically means it's a single bill. Doesn't matter if it's now or next year, at this hospital or that hospital, if you've got cancer we're going to end up paying for treating that cancer. The whole system is geared towards what's medically the most efficient way to treat it, we have a pool of money and it's constantly being evaluated if we spend it on the right things - from the patients' perspective. If there's a cheaper generic medicine we just decree it's the default and you only get other brand medicine if you experience side effects. The pharmacy industry hates this. There's still huge debates on say placements of hospitals and what treatments to support, but it's mostly based in medicine.
It's still not funny... your child is going to die, there's a medicine that could help extend their life but it costs $1 million dollars. At some point somebody has to consider if not 100 $10k treatments or 10000 $100 prescriptions are better for the public health. But if we're doing it with the public's money at least we are considering it, not by what insurance plan you have. Unless you're in the small minority that has private health insurance that lets you get certain surgeries quicker or could afford crazy money out of pocket. But for the money you're getting good care in the public system. And it turns out fixing poor people's simple health problems often avoid big expenses later, we want you healthy enough to be a tax payer. Otherwise some other part of the system will get stuck with the bill.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings