November 24, 2014
A look at robotic surgery proliferation in Denmark
Frederik Joelving, who once did outstanding work for ReutersHealth in the U.S., recently published a piece on robotic surgery in Politiken, a major newspaper in Denmark.
A rough translation of the way the article concluded:
“It may be difficult to reverse (the proliferation trend) if the large randomized trials that other countries are doing should give low marks to the da Vinci system. … Consultant Christian Gluud of the Copenhagen Trial Unit at the University Hospital and an expert in evidence-based medicine, believes that the lack of regulation has left patients in the lurch. “The talks can be held for days about all the damage that has been observed by things slipped through the market without being properly investigated,” he said . “There is a patient safety issue that we have not sufficiently mastered.”
Joelving wrote to me:
“What’s interesting is that even though our healthcare system is publicly funded, the development here is largely parallel to what’s been happening in the US: With hospitals competing to take the lead in robotic surgery and using dubious claims to market the technology, it has now become virtually impossible to have an open (let alone traditional laparoscopic) prostatectomy in most parts of the country.
So far, Denmark — a country of 5.5 million — has bought da Vinci equipment for 44 million US$, and the reimbursement for each robotic surgery is between 5000 and 10000 US$ higher than for the traditional approach. What’s more, all except one university-affiliated hospitals have stopped teaching open/laparoscopic prostate surgery. As one of my sources said, What happens when something goes wrong during a robotic surgery and you have to convert?”
The global march of the robots continues.
—————————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
and on Facebook.
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