The article itself (not just me) is focusing on the one specific horrible case.
In terms of the surgery, I truly have no opinion as to which one is better or even safer. That is still being hotly debated. My opinion is that there is no statistically significant difference. IS THE ARTICLE SAYING OTHERWISE? In fact, the emphasis still seems to be on the one horrendous case. Someone could write almost the identical article but slanting it towards a pro-robotic surgery viewpoint, emphasizing the shorter hospital stays and less blood loss.
A truly accurate article could compare experienced versus less experienced surgeons. In that case, however,
there is a HUGE difference when you compare surgeons: experience and talent wins out big time.
You have cited an article, but then suddenly complaining about the increased deaths resulting from robotic surgery. The article does not seem to directly address that issue.
The only reference to deaths is one sentence, this: "The U.S. Food and Drug administration has received more than 200 reports since 2007 of burns, cuts and infections – including 89 deaths -- after robotic surgery."
Is this bad? How MANY robotic surgeries are done?? Certainly in PC, we do know that the great majority of surgeries are robotic surgeries. But the article talks about robotic surgery in general, not even PC robotic surgery. So, is this figure scary... or reassuring? Are there larger differences between open/robotic surgery for gynecological surgeries? What about other surgeries? There are so many questions not answered or even posed in this pablum article. The article is strong on sensationalism, but weak on information
More importantly, it may be that robotic surgery is being used in too many situations?? I don't know. I had my gall bladder removed 16 months ago. This same surgeon (the top surgeon in town) is now using the robot for gb surgery. Interesting.
My overall point is: focus on the surgeon and experience.
On another related matter:
When I was dx. with PC, I was at least able to gather some data on surgeons and draw some conclusions. Later on, when I had to do SRT, I found it impossible to compare radiation facilitities and, especially, RO doctors. The best I could do was look at the different innovations/machines. But an awful lot of claims appeared to come from the marketing departments. This is also true for robotic surgeries but as I said I was quickly able to find world class experts. Ditto with oncologists specializing solely in prostate cancer, but never with the RO's. Very frustrating. The RO's can easily hide their mistakes. As I said in another thread, my RO made it very clear not to see him if I later develop problems. When I was first interviewing him, he sure did emphasize how complications were so few and far between. HOW THE HECK WOULD HE KNOW! That's a different issue, but it is related to finding the proper expertise
Post Edited (compiler) : 6/15/2013 2:21:49 PM (GMT-6)