In recent months, there have been numerous reports of injuries caused by the da Vinci Robotic Surgery System and its component parts. Of particular concern are the burns and electrocutions that have seriously injured patients undergoing surgery with the assistance of the robot.* Such burns can result in organ damage, infection, and severe bleeding, among other complications.*
There have been two principal causes of the surgical injuries. One cause has been physician error.* Physicians may electrocute a patient if he or she unintentionally fires the charged surgical instrument, or if he or she accidentally touches another robotic arm with an electrified instrument.* The other main cause of injury has been robotic instrument’s lack of proper insulation.* Without appropriate insulation, electricity may unintentionally jump from the device to a patient’s body.*
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received several reports of patient injury (including death) associated with the use of the da Vinci Robotic Surgery System and its monopolar scissors.*
In one such report, Intuitive Surgical, the manufacturer of the da Vinci robot, indicated that a patient undergoing a hysterectomy had sustained a burn to her right external iliac artery, which had caused blood to pump into her body cavity, causing bowel ischemia “incompatible with life.”** In another report, a patient was in surgery to treat his prostate cancer. As soon as the surgeon activated the robotic scissors, they flamed, sparked, and began to smoke. Fortunately, in that case, the patient was not harmed.*** Nevertheless, in another hysterectomy, a patient lost 2,000 mL of blood when the monopolar scissors her surgeon was using sparked and damaged her external iliac vein.**** In a similar event, a patient’s artery was “visibly charred” by a spark from the surgical robot, which resulted in the need for additional stitching.*****
If you or someone you know has suffered an injury that may be related to the da Vinci robot, please contact Audet & Partners, LLP by calling us toll free at 800.965.1461. Alternatively, please complete and submit our confidential inquiry form on the right side of this page. Please act now, since the law may limit your right to recovery if you delay.
* Da Vinci Robotic Surgery Burn and Electrocution Information, http://www.theclarkfirmtexas.com/davinci-robotic-surgery-burn-and-electrocution-information
** FDA Adverse Event Report, Report Number 2955842-2010-00528, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=1915208
*** FDA Adverse Event Report, Report Number 1008021, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/Detail.CFM?MDRFOI__ID=1008021
**** FDA Adverse Event Report, Report Number 2955842-2012-01314, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=2874824
***** FDA Adverse Event Report, Report Number 2955842-2012-01405, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=2884094
.jpg)
While the minimal training provided by Intuitive is a continued topic of controversy, their marketing methods are also being questioned. “Many U.S. hospitals promote robotic surgery in patient brochures, online and even on highway billboards. Their aim is partly to attract business that helps pay for the costly robot.” The cost of a da Vinci Surgical System is approximately $1.45 million.2As previously reported, Fred Taylor of Silverdale, Washington, underwent surgery for a standard prostatectomy on September 9, 2008. Unfortunately, due to multiple complications directly related to the inadequate training of the surgeon, Dr. Scott Bildsten, Mr. Taylor subsequently died. Internal company emails were provided to The New York Times by Mr. Taylor’s estate, which reflect the aggressive marketing approach used by Intuitive. In an email dated May 31, 2011, a Western regional sales manager for Intuitive noted that area surgeons had used robot equipment only five times, although the company’s goal was to see 36 robotic operations performed by the end of June. He urged sales staff to persuade surgeons to switch upcoming cases to robotic ones. ‘Don’t let proctoring or credentialing’ – shorthand for supervised surgery and hospital certification – ‘get in our way’ the email said.3
According to a report published by Citron Research on December 19, 2012, the da Vinci surgical robot “has not been sold to meet patient need, as most medical devices are, but rather it has been sold using fear to hospital management purchasing committees. Aggressive salespeople have escalated a ‘medical arms race’ into high technology.” Citron’s report also found that it has “a track record of excessive and unjustified marketing claims.” Approximately 4,600 adverse event reports were highlighted in Citron’s report, all relating to injury and/or death connected to the da Vinci Surgical System.4
An article published by the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology in September 2012 stated that, “Marketing of robotic gynecology surgery is widespread. Much of the content is not based on high-quality data, fails to present alternative procedures, and relies on stock text and images.”5
Intuitive’s marketing ploy includes statements that the robot can provide definitive treatment, significantly less pain, shorter hospital stay, faster return to normal daily activities, and the potential for a better outcome.6 Unfortunately, as the number of reported injuries and/or deaths continues to rise, these statements are becoming unreliable, leaving Intuitive grasping for alternative marketing strategies.
If you have been injured by robotic surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System, our experienced robotic surgery injury attorneys at Audet and Partners, LLP offer a free consultation so that we can evaluate your legal claim and advise you of your options. We invite you to call us at (800) 965-1461 or email the confidential case inquiry form on the right side of this page.
SOURCES:
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/palos/community/chi-ugc-article-dr-megan-dejong-discusses-womens-health-and-2013-04-29,0,5121710.story
- http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/surgical-robot-scrutinized-fda-deaths-nightmares-article-1.1311447
- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/health/salesmen-in-the-surgical-suite.html?ref=intuitivesurgicalinc&_r=0
- http://badrobotsurgery.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Has-the-Halo-Been-Broken-on-Intuitive-Surgical.pdf
- http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9378/PIIS0002937812006643.pdf
- http://www.davincisurgery.com/da-vinci-surgery/
As lawsuits related to injuries allegedly resulting from inadequate surgeon training on the da Vinci Surgical Robot System continue to surface, Mimic Technologies, Inc., a Seattle-based company has seized the opportunity to provide surgeons with a simulator called the dV-Trainer, which allows surgeons to sharpen their robotic surgery skills in a virtual environment simulating robotic surgery.
Since the FDA has yet to establish specific guidelines regarding a specific threshold of training that a surgeon must undergo prior to conducting robotic surgery on a live patient, this new technology may help reduce the number of injuries allegedly sustained by patients undergoing robotic surgery.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., the manufacturer of the da Vinci Robotic System, collaborated with Mimic Technologies to create the Skill Simulator.1
According to Dr. John Lenihan, “A novice can take eight to 10 hours to complete a procedure that an experienced surgeon can complete in an hour or two – a costly difference that can be reduced with training on a simulator. Simulators also help surgeons maintain proficiency if they go too long between procedures.”1
Dr. Lenihan, former Air Force pilot trained on a simulator, stated that it can take 50-200 practice sessions to become proficient at performing surgery with the da Vinci robot.1 However, practice sessions put “wear and tear” on the robot without generating any revenue, which could be an explanation as to why hospitals have not previously required more comprehensive and repetitive training for surgeons prior to performing live procedures on patients. The dV-Trainer and da Vinci Skill Simulators gives surgeons the ability to practice without endangering patients and putting wear and tear on the actual surgical robots.
To date, the simulators focus on eight different skills, scored based on the surgeon’s performance. Mimic has recommended that hospitals use the score as a threshold factor prior to allowing surgeons to operate on a patient. According to Seattle Business, “The Mimic system reduces hospital costs by reducing errors in surgery, cutting wear and tear on the expensive machines and making the machines more available for use in revenue-generating surgery instead of practice.”2
Florida Hospital Nicholson Center has partnered with Mimic to educate surgeons “about the importance of effective training, in order to save lives and improve costs and quality…it is our hope that access to quality simulation training will move surgeons more rapidly up the learning curve,” says Jeff Berkley, founder and CEO of Mimic Technologies. The partnership includes a curriculum that will “accelerate the adoption of the latest robotic technologies and techniques and surgeon skill expertise.”3
Mimic’s success has gone worldwide. The University Hospital of Nancy, France has five simulators, making it the largest concentration of robotic simulators in the world. Given that the hospital conducts training courses to teach surgeons from various parts of Europe how to use the da Vinci robot, it makes sense that they would have such a large number of simulators.4
If you or someone you know has suffered an injury that may be related to the da Vinci surgical robot, please contact Audet & Partners, LLP by calling us toll free at 800.965.1461, or complete our confidential inquiry form on the right side of this page. Please act now, since the law may limit your right to recovery if you delay.
SOURCES:
2. http://seattlebusinessmag.com/article/bright-idea-mimic-technologies
As Intuitive Surgical Inc. continues to aggressively market its da Vinci surgical robot, its popularity is growing, but so are incidents of injuries allegedly caused by the device and surgeons operating it.
CNBC recently reported on many if the issues associated with the device, and CNBC Investigations Inc. conducted intensive research, which included interviews with surgeons, ex-employees, patients, lawyers, internal documents, studies, and current lawsuits, that resulted in the following findings:
1. According to their research, “…da Vinci hospital robot placements and procedures have skyrocketed. Last year alone, installations rose by 21 percent to 2,585 units worldwide at a cost of more than $1.5 million each. And robotic surgical procedures leaped by 25 percent to 450,000.”
2. With the huge increase in da Vinci sales, an associated increase in injury and death-related lawsuits has occurred.
3. Surgeon training on the robot is minimal.
CNBC conducted interviews with previous Intuitive salespeople and reviewed internal documents. “One common theme is an effort to prod surgeons to ‘convert’ previously scheduled non-robotic surgeries to meet quarterly sales quotas. One former regional sales director stated, ‘We would go to hospitals in a local geography and get docs to pledge they would take business away to other hospitals if their hospital didn’t get the robot.’”i
During their research and interview process, CNBC found that many of the complications and injuries associated with the da Vinci robot are under-reported due to the fact that “…injuries can occur beyond the surgeon’s range of vision and without the surgeon’s knowledge and may only show days after the surgery…resulting in an under-reporting of ‘adverse events’ related to the machine.”i
Many of these “adverse events” have occurred because of improper surgeon training. As previously reported, and also included in CNBC’s report, training typically involves limited classroom teaching, practice on a pig, and a certain number of supervised surgeries on patients based on each individual hospital’s criteria.
Dr. Scott Bildsten, a surgeon in Washington, performed a robotic prostatectomy on a 67-year-old patient named Fred Taylor in September 2008. Dr. Bildsten’s training on the da Vinci robot included one day of classroom training conducted by Intuitive and two supervised robotic surgeries[ii]. Fred Taylor was his third robot-assisted surgery, which was unsupervised. Unfortunately, due to complications during the surgery allegedly due to inadequate training, Fred Taylor subsequently died. Dr. Bildsten later stated: “I was under the initial impression you would get a level of comfort within a certain number of cases. And as…it went along, it seemed it was going to be much longer than that. …And after speaking with some other urologists in a similar situation, who attempted to use the…da Vinci robot prostatectomy, a lot of others have decided not to proceed as well. They found the learning curve so steep and lengthy that the level of comfort just took too long and decided to quit. I was one of those.”i
In addition to improper surgeon training, CNBC reported that da Vinci’s use of “monopolar” energy, used for cauterizing and cutting, has contributed to robot-related injuries. Regarding monopolar energy, Dr. Scott Steel, MD, Chief of Colon and Rectal Surgery at Madigan Army Medical Center in Fort Lewis, WA, says that “If you can minimize the amount of heat that is generated, you have less collateral damage [and] less damage to surrounding structures.”[iii] This relates to the da Vinci robot and its failure to insulate the heat energy properly, resulting in, “…’stray currents’ or arching—when sparks from an instrument leap elsewhere.”i
The research and report by CNBC reaffirmed many of the issues that have been previously reported regarding improper surgeon training on the da Vinci robot, da Vinci robot malfunctions, and Intuitive’s marketing schemes. Patients considering robotic surgery should carefully consider their options and contemplate obtaining a second opinion to determine the best course of action for their health needs.
If you, or one close to you, has suffered injuries as a result of a surgical procedure using the da Vinci Surgical Robot, you are urged to contact Audet and Partners, LLP at (800) 965-1461, or by submitting our confidential online inquiry form to the right of this page.
Intuitive Surgical Inc. is confronting new allegations that it failed to provide adequate training for physicians using its da Vinci surgical robot, and may have encouraged less training, thereby increasing the risks to patients undergoing robotic surgery.
No strict training guidelines or requirements currently exist that govern a physician use of the robot on a live patient. The amount and depth of training is currently left within the purview of individual doctors and/or hospitals. Undisclosed personnel from Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover, NH, have stated that their training included only two days of operation on a pig and human cadavers.
Intuitive’s chief medical advisor, Myriam Curet stated that, “The training we do is quite extensive,” and according to Intuitive’s website, “We believe rigorous training standards and support of our System users are essential to establishing and maintaining a successful da Vinci Surgery program.” However, Intuitive’s suggested training regimen hardly seems adequate as it only includes an online quiz consisting of 10 hard-to-fail questions, practice simulators and a one-day training course, as well as a minimal number of proctored cases.
Interestingly, prior to the robot being cleared by the FDA in 2009, the online quiz was 70 questions and the training course was three days long. With regards to adequate training, Benjamin O. Anderson, an FDA panel member at the time, stated that it “is the most important part of what was discussed today.”
In response to a recent lawsuit, Intuitive argued that because “credentialing and privileging for performing surgery at a hospital is solely the responsibility of the hospital,” the case should be dismissed. This particular case was subsequently settled. Nonetheless, lawsuits are continuing to be filed in connection with injuries sustained by patients alleging as causative factors inadequately trained doctors using the robot.
Internal Intuitive emails introduced in a lawsuit filed in Kitsap County, Washington have uncovered a manager’s recommendation to a sales team in connection with meeting sales goals, to not “let proctoring or credentialing get in the way.”
Doctors themselves are voicing their opinions about the learning curve of the robot:
- The American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists suggests at least 10 supervised surgeries prior to allowing doctors to use the robot unsupervised.
- Dr. Jim Hu, director of Urologic Robotic and Minimally Invasive Surgery at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles indicates that, “The robot surgery requires a long learning curve to become good at it,” and specifically referring to prostate cancer surgery, Hu says that proficiency can take up to 200 plus operations to achieve. Dr. Hu assisted on 400 robot surgeries prior to performing them on his own. “None of us would go and get surgery if we knew the guy had done it just a couple of time before,” he says.
- According to a recent study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, published in the Obstetrics & Gynecology medical journal, surgical proficiency “occurs after performing approximately 91 procedures.”
Dr. Anne Kalter, a surgeon from Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, a supporter of robotic surgery, has said that in connection with adequate training, “There is no national standard requirement for this…it will probably be coming in the next couple of years. The technology is so new that every hospital has been finding out on its own what path is comfortable for them to take. “ Unfortunately, the path Wentworth-Douglass chose to take obviously was not adequate. During two routine hysterectomies, a physician accidentally cut the ureters of the patients. Subsequently, the physician performing the surgery and the supervising physician were both required to have remedial training.
SOURCES:
http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/training/
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100512/GJNEWS_01/705129914/-1/FOSNEWS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304703104575173952145907526.html
Robotic hysterectomy for surgery has become more common over the past three years; however, experts are saying that it is more appropriately suited for complex conditions. Dr. James Breeden, president of The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a statement reflecting the ACOG’s opinion about robotic surgery for hysterectomy:
“While there may be some advantages to the use of robotics in complex hysterectomies, especially for cancer operations that require extensive surgery and removal of lymph nodes, studies have shown that adding this expensive technology for routine surgical care does not improve patient outcomes. Consequently, there is no good data proving that robotic hysterectomy is even as good as – let alone better – than existing, and far less costly, minimally invasive alternatives.”
A considerable amount of money has been spent on the marketing and advertising of this device by its manufacturers, and it appears to be effective. According to a recent study, over the past three years, the number of robotic hysterectomies has increased approximately 10 percent. Dr. Breeden boldly states that, “It is important to separate the marketing hype from reality when considering the best surgical approach for hysterectomy.”
Dr. Joel Weissman from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston appears to agree with Dr. Breeden when he stated, “This is clearly in some ways a waste of resources…it’s a waste because there are equally good options and one is just more expensive than the other.”
Research conducted and led by Dr. Jason Wright from Columbia University in New York found a very minimal advantage of robotic surgery versus non-robotic: instead of the standard 25 percent of women staying longer than two days after non-robotic surgery, only 20 percent stayed longer than two days after the robotic surgery. In addition, they found no difference in a woman’s chances of requiring a blood transfusion or specialty care, based on the type of procedure (i.e. robotic or non-robotic surgery).
Second to cesarean sections, hysterectomies are the most common surgical procedure performed on women. It’s obvious why manufacturers of the robotic device are pushing its use beyond complex hysterectomies.
According to Dr. Breeden, “…an estimated $960 million to $1.9 billion will be added to the health care system if robotic surgery is used for all hysterectomies each year.” Dr. Wright and his team found that the average cost for a robotic-assisted hysterectomy was approximately $8,900, while non-robotic surgery costs approximately $6,700.
Any patient considering a hysterectomy should consult with their doctor regarding the various procedures available, their benefits and risks. Any procedure of this type has associated risks, such as reaction to anesthesia, bleeding, infection, damage to other organs inside the abdomen, blood clots, etc. However, patients should be aware of a risk specifically associated with use of the robotic device: robotic surgeries generally take longer, meaning that the patient is under anesthesia longer, increasing other risks.
The use of an expensive robot that does not have any proven benefits for standard hysterectomies appears to simply be a money-making scheme and patients should fully investigate their options prior to surgery.
SOURCES:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/19/us-robot-hysterectomies-idUSBRE91I18I20130219
http://www.allinahealth.org/ahs/healthday.nsf/newsByID/674473
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/test_procedures/gynecology/robotic_hysterectomy_135,12/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/03/15/ob-gyns-told-robot-hysterectomy-not-best-option/
Shares of Intuitive Surgical neared a historical high for the stock several weeks ago at $578 a share after announcing a rise in earnings of thirty percent per share during 2012. Investors have flooded to the robotic surgical device company’s stock because it has outpaced other large medical product companies. The company’s valuation at $24 billion is equivalent to 36 times its earnings for 2012, despite a spate of lawsuits for injuries allegedly caused by the da Vinci system, as previously reported by Audet and Partners, LLP.
The surgical robotic devices have been promoted extensively on the Internet, billboards and hospitals in the U.S. where over 75 percent of the over 2,500 da Vinci systems have been sold and installed. The robotic surgical system was utilized in 2012 in approximately 450,000 surgeries. Hospitals and other surgical centers are using the da Vinci system in nearly 85 percent of prostate surgeries even though the device was approved just 13 years ago for use in surgical procedures for prostate cancer.
While a rapidly growing number of surgical centers are conducting surgical procedures with the Da Vinci robotic system, a recent Barron’s article reported that some are skeptical that the company will continue to reign as a high-multiple growth stock. The robotic surgical devices can cost as much as $2.6 million with add-on packages and technical support. There are concerns that widespread use of the systems will escalate the already high cost of health care that currently constitutes approximately one-fifth of gross domestic product.
These costs do not include the expense $1,300 to $2,200 per procedure that the surgical center must pay and the annual service contract of $170,000. A report in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that the amortized cost of the da Vinci surgical system would increase the average cost of surgery by thirteen percent. The medical journal also indicated that the widespread use of these robotic surgical devices would drive up the cost of medical care in excess of $2.5 billion per year.
While splashy ads are being employed by hospitals that have purchased the da Vinci surgical robotic device offering better outcomes and accelerated recovery times, recent studies suggest that any benefits from robotic surgery over conventional surgery may be nominal. There has been a fair amount of speculation in the medical community about whether these nominal benefits justify the thousands of dollars in extra expense that patients are billed for robotic surgery.
Dr. Simon Kim of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota conducted an analysis and found that the average cost of robotic prostate surgery cost a patient $10,400 while the average cost of more conventional surgery (so-called radical prostatectomy) is only $8,900. Given that the clinical benefits of robotic surgery are unproven despite the elaborate claims of da Vinci and the surgical centers that have purchased the medical device, there is a legitimate reason to be concerned that hospitals will inappropriately push the procedure to recoup their capital investment.
These concerns about the expensive price tag of surgical procedures using robotic technology have been intensified by questions about the safety and clinical benefits of this more expensive surgical procedure. Many surgeons receive only limited training, which may compromise patient safety. These concerns explain the guarded forecast about the future growth of da Vinci stock despite its prior success.
If you have been injured by robotic surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System, our experienced robotic surgery injury attorneys at Audet and Partners, LLP offer a free consultation so that we can evaluate your legal claim and advise you of your options. We invite you to call us at (800) 965-1461 or submit our confidential case inquiry form to the right of this page.
Hospitals across the U.S. are increasingly relying on robotic surgery to perform hysterectomies and other surgical procedures, including cardiovascular, gallbladder, and prostate surgeries. Intuitive Surgical Inc., which manufacturers the da Vinci Surgical System used in robotic surgery, has heavily marketed the medical device to not just hospitals but also consumers.
.jpg)
Hospitals that invest in the daVinci robotic surgery medical device may feel economic pressure to perform enough surgeries to recoup their investment. Substantiating findings by Audet and Partners, LLP, a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggests that patients may be forced to pay substantially more for robotic surgical procedures without receiving any real benefit from robotic surgery.
Marketing campaigns laud the benefits of robotic surgery, which are purported to include less pain, reduced blood loss, minimal scarring, fewer complications and accelerated recover times. These suggested benefits are so persuasive to consumers that many hospitals feel compelled to acquire these expensive pieces of surgical equipment at a cost of up to $2.2 million.
However, many contend that these benefits are the product of the minimally invasive nature of the procedure rather than the involvement of robotic surgical equipment. Those that are skeptical regarding the benefits of robotic surgery point out that conventional laparoscopic surgery yields the same benefits because it is also minimally invasive.
A recent study has cast further doubts on the benefits of robotic surgery. Conducted by researchers at Columbia University, researchers reviewed medical records for over 264,000 women who received hysterectomies that were unrelated to cancer at over 440 hospitals covering a four-year period. The study found that the volume of robotic surgeries performed during that period increased from 0.5 percent at the beginning of the study to 10 percent. If only hospitals with the da Vinci Surgical System are considered, robotic surgeries accounted for 22 percent of all hysterectomies.
The most concerning aspect of this study is the minimal difference in outcome based on the relative cost of the procedures. About 25 percent of those who received conventional laparoscopic procedures needed to stay in the hospital more than two days, the percentage of women requiring more than a two day stay after robotic surgery was 20 percent. The complication rate for both procedures was an identical five percent. In other words, the procedures resulted in comparable outcomes, but the cost was not comparable. The average total cost for patients who received the robotic surgery was just over $8,860 while the cost for those who received laparoscopic surgery was slightly over $6,670. If you, or someone to whom you are close, have suffered complications as a result of da Vinci robotic surgery, you are urged to contact Audet and Partners, LLP at (800) 965-1461.
A separate study that also was made public this week by gynecological surgeon Marie Paraiso of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio reached a similar troubling conclusion. Paraiso randomly assigned 53 hysterectomy patients to either robotic or laparoscopic surgery. The study concluded no significant distinctions in pain, recovery time and blood loss. Further, the robotic surgical technique lasted 77 minutes longer on average than the laparoscopic surgical procedure. The longer duration for the procedure means increased cost for the patient.
The financial pressure on hospitals involved in recouping their substantial investment in this equipment is borne by patients who may be paying almost $2,000 more for a procedure that offers no clear benefits to justify the additional cost.
Call For Your Free Initial Consultation Today
If you have been injured by robotic surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System, our experienced robotic surgery injury attorneys at Audet and Partners, LLP offer a free consultation so that we can evaluate your legal claim and advise you of your options. We invite you to call us at (800) 965-1461 or email the confidential case inquiry form on the right side of this page.
I am unable to contain myself for another minute. Let’s talk about robotic surgery.
This is from How Stuff Works, a Discovery Company, but it could have been written by the makers of the surgical robot:
“Most surgeries require nearly a dozen people in the room. As with all automation, surgical robots will eventually eliminate the need for some personnel.”
This is another example of a “straw man.” [Establish a false premise and defeat it with your argument.] Just about all operations require five people—surgeon, assistant, scrub nurse, circulating nurse, anesthesiologist. Some complex procedures might require another assistant. A dozen people might be needed for separation of Siamese twins or bilateral leg transplants.
Read more: http://skepticalscalpel.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-robotic-surgery-all-hype-and-no.html
The surgeon who blogs as Skeptical Scalpel writes that he (she?) is unable to contain him(her)self any longer and then lunges into a review of evidence (or lack thereof) for robotic surgery.
You may disagree with Skeptical Scalpel’s decision to be anonymous, but he/she explains:
“I’ve been a surgeon for almost 40 years and a surgical department chairman for over 23 of those years. During much of that time, conforming to the norms, rules and regulations of government agencies, accrediting bodies, hospitals, societies, and social convention was necessary for survival. I was always somewhat outspoken but in a controlled way most of the time. I now have a purely clinical surgery practice with no meetings, site visits or administrative hassles. I am free to speak my mind about medicine or anything else.”