Robots aren't taking over . . . yet

 A couple of years ago, I had a robotic laparoscopic hernia repair. This is one of the most common surgeries in the US, and it certainly resolved my hernia.

I was never exactly clear on what the advantage to robotic surgery was. Apparently, there is none, except to the bottom line of the practice. It’s more about branding than outcomes:

“The authors looked at every single randomized controlled trial study for mostly gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and urologic procedures. Things in the abdomen and pelvis, which is the bulk of robotic surgery. And what they found was notable. They found just over 40 trials, and not all of them but most of them reported the rates of complications, something over 30. And when they reported complications, sometimes the robot came out ahead, but sometimes the robot didn't and laparoscopic or even open surgery did just about the same. There appeared to be much more cost if you use the robot. And you were in the OR just as long as you were if you had an open surgery by using the robot. Only laparoscopic surgery saved time.

The authors conclude this: "There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions may have potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages." That's a very negative conclusion about what's been going on for over 30 years. A widespread and expensive robot that's being used all over America to perform these surgeries. And the authors here look at every randomized study, and they don't find a distinct advantage.”

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/93333?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2021-06-29&eun=g1700464d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Top%20Cat%20HeC%20%202021-06-29&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition