To a man with a new hammer, everything looks like a nail.
To a hospital and/or surgical team with a new robotic surgery system, everything looks like a prime candidate for the robot.
And then there’s this about “off-label” use of the robot for thyroid surgery:
“Surgery to remove part of the thyroid gland is twice as expensive when it’s done with the help of a robot rather than by a surgeon alone, according to a new study. …
(Dr. James Broome) told Reuters Health that the findings are in line with data on a range of robotic surgery uses.
“None of those procedures have shown any improved outcomes for the patient,” he said. Patients “should be very cautious about whether it actually does anything better for them.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (8)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Greg Pawelski
August 24, 2012 at 11:28 amTulane University School of Medicine surgeon Dr. Emad Kandil was one of the first in the country to perform the da Vinci endoscopic surgery on the thyroid. The technique safely removes the thyroid without leaving so much as a scratch on the neck. Traditional thyroidectomies can involve a long incision at the base of the neck. Tulane’s press release about this in 2009, says the technique was approved by the FDA during the summer of 2009. So, was it approved by the FDA or not? Is this really done “off-label” or not?
Gary Schwitzer
August 24, 2012 at 12:40 pmGreg:
In the Archives of Surgery paper, the authors note:
Harold DeMonaco
August 29, 2012 at 7:30 pmThe transaxillary approach for thyroidectomy has the distinct cosmetic advantage in that the scar is under the armpit rather than the neck. As usual, the number of cases performed by the surgeon is an important determinant of the risks of the minimally invasive approach. At issue then is the skill of the surgeon and not the approval of the FDA for the device. As appealing as it is, the robot assisted procedure has a theoretical risk of incomplete removal of the thyroid balancing the cosmetic advantage. (see: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 214(4):558-64; discussion 564-6, 2012 Apr.)
James Broome
September 10, 2012 at 2:19 pmObviously I have an opinion on this paper, but I think the point it was attempting to make is that the only benefit for this robotic procedure is cosmesis. All other outcomes, in highly skilled hands, are the same. The cost is significantly higher with no adjustment made in the billing of the procedure to account for the difference in cost. Therefore, the system as a whole pays for a cosmetic decision with no therapeutic benefit. “Traditional thyroidectomies can involved a long incision in the neck” — the competent Thyroid Surgeon with the skills tobe doing robotic cases likely completes their surgeries through a small 4 to 6 cm incision for the vast majority of cases. Finally, in regards to the volume/skill of the surgeon, even in the highest volume centers it will be difficult to reach the 40 to 50 patients needed to reach “equivalent” results for the technique. Dr. Kandil has widely utilized this technique, but routine acceptance of this should be questioned.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like