Health care marketing of robotic surgery systems knows no bounds. At the end of this piece, you can see a list of past posts on this marketing trend.
Besides the explosive use in prostate surgery, we’ve seen promotions of robotic “firsts” for:
You name the body part, there’s somebody looking to do robotic surgery on it. Remember the old saying, “To a man with a new hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Do the big health care players feel they need to play the marketing/publicity game as well?
Johns Hopkins Medicine today sent out this news release:
At the end of the release is this special offer: “Patients who have undergone the robotic single-site procedure are eager to share the experience with the media.”
What does “among the first in the country” mean?
A brief web search for “robotic single-site hysterectomy” turned up many results, including claims by:
But beyond how you define “among the first,” I wonder what does being among the first really mean to patients?
As promised earlier, here are some of our past posts on hospitals marketing their robotic surgery systems:
Excerpt: “Aggressive direct-to-consumer marketing of the latest medical technologies may mislead the public into believing that they are the best choice. Our patients deserve and need factual information about all of their treatment options, including costs, so that they can make truly informed health care decisions. Patients should be advised that robotic hysterectomy is best used for unusual and complex clinical conditions in which improved outcomes over standard minimally invasive approaches have been demonstrated.”
——————————
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