PsychoEngineer t1_ir4zhea wrote
Reply to comment by iemailrobi in Humans operating on humans are still better than robots operating on humans...even when a human is operating the robot. by Notreallyonreddityet
Correct. But that’s also why there are other medical robotics similar that are specifically for orthopedic applications.
iemailrobi t1_ir5176l wrote
I know. Unfortunately that’s what the large scale papers and research are showing that they worsen the results of surgery. At least at this point. One day you’d imagine that’ll change.
bewbs_and_stuff t1_ird5dh3 wrote
Is your end goal to create singular robot that can perform all varieties of surgery? I never understood that to have been the design intent of the Davinci. My assumption was that the development of care using such a robot would eventually provide the invaluable resource of expert surgical care irrespective of you local. Who cares if it takes a specific robot to do each specific surgery? (Being fastidious here) But Fill the room with 100 robots and still all you have to do is save 1 Jeff Bezos, 1 bill gates, 1 Warren Buffett, 1 Elon musk and the it’s a net positive to the gdp.
iemailrobi t1_ire3jiq wrote
No, our idea is that there needs to be at lease 2 kinds of robots. One for soft tissue and one for more “dramatic” ortho-type surgery. But confirmation for X-ray guided procedures is a must https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tftObMt18OY
WasatchSLC t1_ir5cyo8 wrote
Statistically they aren’t any better than a surgeon who does the same thing all the time, like a surgeon who only hip and knee replacements. It’s kind of like trying to make a robot to do HVAC or plumbing, they just aren’t there yet.
PsychoEngineer t1_ir5fdxq wrote
Can you link to the study showing this overall?
The one linked by the OP was only a small study in the UK done by 3 doctors with barely over 100 patients with limited data used to determining the effectiveness/differences.
WasatchSLC t1_ir5go1c wrote
Schemitsch, Emil H. MD, FRCS(C). In Younger Patients with End-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis, Computer-Assisted Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty Did Not Improve Function at 15 Years. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: November 21, 2018 - Volume 100 - Issue 22 - p 1982 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00917
WasatchSLC t1_ir5grn7 wrote
I think you’re going to find a lot of limited sample size and lack of long term outcomes.
PsychoEngineer t1_ir5i3uj wrote
And that’s where I have a hard time agreeing with your broad claim of not being any better.
WasatchSLC t1_ir5jubu wrote
I mean if we had the data it was significantly better, we’d be doing it. Just like if injections of stem cells into an arthritic joint cured arthritis we would do that. They just aren’t simply there yet. One day I’m sure they will be, but don’t underestimate a skilled human either.
WasatchSLC t1_ir5k7w7 wrote
But if you look at the knee outcome scores (which have been extensively validated), they aren’t better. So that’s why I make the statement.
iemailrobi t1_ir890ad wrote
It’s the pearldiver insurance database and propensity matched with thousands of patients in each cohort. Likely the data is true and complications are in many cases 2-4x higher. Shocking
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments