Somehow someone added me to the mailing list for news releases from a hospital in Mumbai. How/why this happens, one can only guess.
But if they’re going to send ’em, I may write about ’em – even though maybe not with the slant the PR folks wanted. The latest news release from them sheds light on how robotic surgery is promoted in other places.
Excerpts of the news release:
Fastest 50 Robotic Surgeries
In 70 days, the specialist doctors conduct surgical procedures using robotic technology to save lives and create a milestone
“giving a new lease of life to the patients with greater precision and safety.”
“the first in Mumbai to conduct rare surgeries using the Robotic Technology, including Robotic Adrenalectomy (Adrenal gland tumour), Robotic Anterior Exenteration (Urinary bladder cancer in females), Robotic Radical Cystectomy (Urinary bladder, creating a new bladder in same position), Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (Lymph nodes removal from groin in case of penile cancer), Sacrocolpopexy (repair pelvic prolapse), and Robotic Surgery for Endometriosis.”
“expert doctors with good experience in performing such procedures conduct each operation meticulously with reduced pain and reduced risk of infection to the patient. Moreover, robotic technology for surgery is in the pipeline at the hospital for several other fields such as ENT/Head-Neck; Colorectal; Liver and Cardiac.“
We’ve come to expect that no data are provided in hospital news releases – and there were none.
We’ve come to expect that hospitals promote and justify their expensive investment in robotic surgical systems – and that happened herein.
In the past, we reported on one study that reported “Three experienced surgeons needed more than 1,600 cases to achieve acceptable outcomes with robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.” One can only wonder what the learning curve is for the “rare surgeries” described in the news release. Of course, one can only wonder because there is no hint of that issue in the hospital news release.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
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