The surgeon who blogs and tweets as The Skeptical Scalpel (@Skepticscalpel) started my day with a Tweet that read:
Houston Chronicle’s hard-hitting exposé on robotic surgery. http://is.gd/lT5ed4
You have to know his work and his style to know that he was being sarcastic about “hard hitting exposé.”
The headline of the piece is:
Advances in surgeries with robots reduce risks and trim recovery times
The lead paragraph is:
What if you could have a major surgery with only a short hospital stay, very little pain, low risk of infection, little blood loss, minimal scarring, and a fast recovery and return to normal daily activities?
Unfortunately, readers are never given any evidence about reduced risk, trimmed recovery times, shorter hospital stay, very little pain or any of the other claims in the headline and lead.
The entire piece – as so many stories about robotic surgery tend to do – focuses on what it means to the surgeon:
While we all want surgeons who are comfortable with what they do (if we choose surgery), these testimonials do not necessarily equate to improved patient outcomes.
And while the story discusses using the robot in some new applications, patients/readers should be told something about the learning curve. How long does it take a surgeon, using a new device in a new way for a different condition on a different part of the body, to become proficient? If the answer is 500 cases, would you want to be numbers 1 – 499?
That’s what was missing in the “hard hitting exposé.”
Journalists can do better in reporting on new technologies, and on the proliferation of new technologies into new fields. And if they don’t, they’ll have to live with comments, like some of these, left in response to the Houston Chronicle story:
See past blog posts about robotic surgery marketing vs. data/evidence.
———————————————
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Comments (12)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Skeptical Scalpel
March 12, 2013 at 11:24 amIsn’t it interesting that the comments were so much more insightful than the story?
Quinn Eastman
March 13, 2013 at 10:03 amI thought journalists would be less enthusiastic about this type of story since robotic surgery has become more common. Simply put, it’s not news anymore.
Also – cardiac surgeons at the university hospital where I work told me, “We have used the robot for a certain procedure several times, but we found losing the tactile feedback has drawbacks.”
Quinn Eastman
March 13, 2013 at 10:03 amI thought journalists would be less enthusiastic about this type of story since robotic surgery has become more common. Simply put, it’s not news anymore.
Also – cardiac surgeons at the university hospital where I work told me, “We have used the robot for a certain procedure several times, but we found losing the tactile feedback has drawbacks.”
Daniel Pendick
March 18, 2013 at 10:08 amSome prospective residents and fellows won’t even consider accepting a position at a major hospital if they don’t have a robot to play with. It’s another example of a factor driving the proliferation of expensive medical technology that may have little to do with patient outcomes–in this case, the point is that surgeons in training perceive robotic surgery as good for their careers. That said, I am sure they also believe robots are good for patients.
Addi Faerber
March 18, 2013 at 1:03 pmI think for new surgical technology we need to measure a “Number to Competency” which summarizes how many surgeries the average surgeon will have to perform using the new technology in order to have measured outcomes _equivalent to_ the standard surgery. From what I’ve ready the NTC for robotic prostatectomy is close to 40 – If you’re case 1 to 39, you should know that you’re practice fodder for the surgeon who is expected to perform the surgery worse than if you’d gotten the basic procedure.
Gary Schwitzer
March 18, 2013 at 1:21 pmAddi,
Thanks for your note.
I’ve seen (and written briefly about) learning curve estimates ranging from 150 – 1,600 surgeries. However, I acknowledge that I have little confidence in such estimates.
Walter Lipman
March 18, 2013 at 6:31 pmOught not the fee charged to a patient in the “learning group” for a given procedure be reflective of this fact? Alternatively, perhaps “learning group” procedures should be performed on those cases and in a clinic setting keeping with patients from whom the hospital has little or no hope of recouping their customary fees for service? So much of robotic surgery and its applicable learning curve defies what ought to be the true economics of the situation, given our present system of medical care and billing.
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