The new Da Vinci surgic![\"OLYMPUS](\"http:\/\/joeuchill.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/resized-original-photo-300x224.jpg\")
al robot is a hit with patients, who request it for all kinds of procedures. But is it really more effective than traditional surgery — or just more expensive? Some doctors argue that without much authoritative research, the Da Vinci robot is more a marketing tool than an improvement to surgery.<\/p>\n
Procedures performed with the new, high-tech, Da Vinci robot use a narrower blade and provide greater precision than traditional open surgeries performed with a scalpel. The machines are maneuvered by a surgeon operating the robotic arms from behind a nearby console. There are 2,132 Da Vinci systems world-wide, said Chris Simmonds, senior director of marketing services for manufacturer Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and that number is growing. But they do not come cheap. The machines each cost between $1.1 million and $2 million, with an additional cost of $100 thousand to $180 thousand for maintenance annually. Those costs get passed on the patient.<\/p>\n
A 2011 study from Johns Hopkins University about the marketing of the Da Vinci robot found 41 percent of hospital websites included a description of robotic surgery, with 89 percent of those descriptions claiming clinical superiority. But only 2 percent of those hospitals made a specific comparison to open or laparoscopic surgery, the traditional alternative that involves inserting a camera through an incision. The marketing for robotic surgery may win over more converts than the results of the surgeries.<\/p>\n
One of the most common uses of the robot is in prostate removal. The prostate cancer support group Us Too estimates every five minutes, two men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of that group, an estimated 86 percent of the ones who opted for surgery chose to have robot-assisted operations.<\/p>\n
Yet despite the procedure\u2019s popularity, a 2008 study of Medicare patients found that adverse effects like sexual dysfunction and incontinence were no less frequent than with open surgery.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou start to see this is not just a trivial issue of exuberant marketing, but it is in some cases potentially inaccurate and really harmful, potentially harmful information, wrapped in the glitz and the glamor of a new technology,\u201d said Gary Schwitzer, publisher of HealthNewsReview.org, a site devoted to reviewing media coverage of \u201cmedical treatments, tests, products and procedures.\u201d Schwitzer has been reporting on health issues for more than 30 years.<\/p>\n
He said he first noticed heavy positive media coverage of robotics about three years ago and HealthNewsReview.org has since examined a number of articles about robotic surgery. The site often highlights the lack of critical analysis done by journalists. For example, in a May 2009 post, Schwitzer noted that a Good Morning America episode devoted to robotic surgery did not mention risks, the cost of the technology or treatment, independent research to verify results or other treatment options.<\/p>\n
Prostate cancer survivor Bob Wright, an Us Too volunteer, chose to go through with a robotic procedure after talking to a coworker who had gone through it and recommended an experienced surgeon in San Antonio. Wright highlighted purported benefits \u2013 a shorter hospital stay and decreased blood loss, as well as the increased range of motion provided by the robot that\u2019s not possible with laparoscopic surgery.<\/p>\n
But Schwitzer said greater precision and control were not as important as the long-term results.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf that doesn\u2019t translate to improved outcomes, then healthcare consumers should be asking, \u2018well, what do I care about greater precision and control?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
One 2009 study from the Royal Free Hospital and University College School of Medicine in London claims that robot-assisted gallbladder removal had no significant advantages over traditional laparoscopic ones.<\/p>\n
Another report from the Department of Surgery at the Second Hospital of China\u2019s Lanzhou University in 2010 reviewed studies of robot-assisted surgery for acid reflux. It concluded that robotic surgery was a \u201cfeasible alternative\u201d but that it lacked obvious advantages for extensive clinical application.<\/p>\n
Simmonds disagreed.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe do think the surgery is proven,\u201d Simmonds said, pointing out that there have been more than 4,600 peer-reviewed papers published on Da Vinci surgery.<\/p>\n
But the standard of proof in medical research is the control study, which randomly determines the patients who get each treatment, keeping that information secret even from the patients. Randomized trials have been the exception, not the rule.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere have been 25 randomized trials carried out on da Vinci out of the 4,600,\u201d Simmonds said. \u201cThere have been attempts to do randomized trials over the years against open [surgery], but patients have not been willing to go into the open arm when given a choice.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe number of good trials comparing robotic surgery are slim, if any,\u201d said Dr. Richard Hodin, chief of endocrine surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.<\/p>\n
Until he sees more randomized trials, Hodin will be skeptical the Da Vinci offers much more than a marketing angle.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a new technology and there\u2019s certainly surgeons and hospitals that are pushing the technology and describing it in a way to make it sound better. If that\u2019s what people are told, that\u2019s what people believe,\u201d Hodin said.<\/p>\n
Instead of randomized trials, most research has been done through the less effective cohort studies, studies that follow people who chose their own treatment. Because the studies aren\u2019t randomized, it might, for example, turn out that the type of people who would research cutting-edge Da Vinci surgery are also the people most likely to pursue other effective lifestyle changes. But even the cohort studies peg da Vinci as a boon to specific surgeries and not a universal panacea.<\/p>\n
Some robotic surgeries, such as the cystectomy (the removal of all or part of the bladder), did fare well in these studies.\u00a0 A 2011 review study by researchers at the University of Bern in Switzerland and the University of Southern California noted that complications in cystectomies could add as much as $20,000 and that after one month complications were nearly 50 percent more likely in traditional, rather than robotic, surgery. The Bern study speculated that cutting the costs of complications would\u00a0 compensate for the high price of the robotic procedure over the long hall.<\/p>\n
But reduced complications do not result from all robotic procedures. A 2011 cohort study by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy found that average length of hospital stays and number of surgical complications were almost identical in patients receiving traditional and robotic splenectomies (when all or part of the spleen is removed). The study of 90 patients found that the total cost of robotic spleen surgeries was nearly three times as much as conventional surgeries.<\/p>\n
Still, it\u2019s difficult to ignore the testimonials from people like Wright, who chose to go through with the surgery and was pleased with the results. \u201cThere\u2019s no question in my mind that if you\u2019re a surgical candidate, it\u2019s a good alternative if you have a well-trained physician doing it.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said to choose the technician, not the technique, which may ultimately be the main thing fans and detractors of robotic surgery can agree on.<\/p>\n
By Joe Uchill and Lisa Weidenfeld<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The new Da Vinci surgical robot is a hit with patients, who request it for all kinds of procedures. But is it really more effective than traditional surgery — or just more expensive? Some doctors argue that without much authoritative research, the Da Vinci robot is more a marketing tool than an improvement to surgery. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":151,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=109"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":230,"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109\/revisions\/230"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/151"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/joeuchill.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}