Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, as Paul Levy writes on his Not Running A Hospital blog, is a surgery to remove a gall bladder using laparoscopic instruments through holes in the abdomen instead of cutting it open. Lap choles, for short.
“So, what do you do if you are a robotic surgery device company that has saturated the marketplace for robot-assisted prostate surgery…?
Answer: You try to create a demand for robot lap choles. You drool as you read:
In 2008, 750,000 patients underwent cholecystectomy in the United States; in 90% of these patients, the operation was done laparoscopically.
This is huge compared even to the 90,000 radical prostatectomies that are undertaken each year, where you have grabbed 70,000 of the total.
Just imagine if we could get doctors and hospitals to buy our robot to do a portion of those.“
Levy then links to a couple of YouTube videos that were posted by different hospitals. One, he writes, was of a doctor and a patient making “unsupported assertions about the relative benefits compared to the excellent safety record of traditional lap choles.”
About a year ago, we posted, “Major-market TV news glorification of “scarless” robotic surgery,” which was about the “first single-site, single-incision gallbladder removal done by a community hospital in state of California.”
The Skeptical Scalpel has written about “no proof” that robotic cholecystectomy is better than regular laparoscopic surgery.
And, regarding a different robotic surgery use,MedPage Today reports, “Robotics No Help in Cystectomy.”
“A randomized trial comparing robotic with open cystectomy ended early after an interim analysis showed the minimally invasive approach did not reduce complications, according to a study reported (at the American Urological Association meeting in San Diego this week).
…
(The researcher said:) “This study demonstrates that well-designed randomized, controlled trials of new surgical technologies are possible and should be strongly encouraged to better answer important clinical questions.”
…
In recent years, use of robotic radical cystectomy has increased as surgeons attempt to reduce complications and morbidity. Whether robotic assistance has accomplished that goal has yet to be determined.”
—————————-
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Media coverage of a recent study is generating unwarranted hype about supplemental screening for cancer for women with dense breasts. https://lowninstitute.org/news/blog/media-misleads-on-mri-screening-for-breast-cancer/
Happy to see that my @HealthNewsRevu blog about progression-free survival confusion has been reposted by @kevinmd. https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2019/12/most-new-cancer-treatments-havent-been-proven-to-help-patients-live-longer-or-feel-better.html via @kevinmd
We are all worse off for not having @garyschwitzer's excellent, daily health care reporting, but his story today should sound the alarms and be a warning to anyone who gets health care information from local TV health news (read: much of America) (1/2) https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/11/why-hire-a-full-time-health-reporter-when-you-can-buy-news-off-the-shelf/#.Xeank0LWjyA.twitter
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Karina Alberton
May 16, 2013 at 6:13 amTechnology is amazing these days. I had an Robotic Hysterectomy
operation performed using the da Vinci robot. Worked well for me!
Karina Alberton
May 16, 2013 at 6:13 amTechnology is amazing these days. I had an Robotic Hysterectomy
operation performed using the da Vinci robot. Worked well for me!
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