Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

jlesnick t1_iz08v05 wrote

I’m glad if this helps with esophageal cancers. It’s my understanding that they have to really tear up your throat and associated anatomies to treat those cancers. It would be so amazing for patient quality of life if these cancers could be treated with out as much collateral damage

238

Blacklight_sunflare t1_iz0fm15 wrote

Robotic esophageal surgery is already pretty common using the Da Vinci platform. Not sure if this is a new surgical approach or just using a new robot to do the same procedure

88

WilliamMurderfacex3 t1_iz0lcod wrote

It looks like a new robot doing the same thing. The article doesn't have a ton of detail.

35

kobylaz t1_iz0w83j wrote

Versius is getting peddled pretty hard but it is doing the same surgery just with a different ‘robot’. Its probably the closest competitor to Intuitives machines but they also probably have an unassailable market share till peoples machines come to the end of their working life.

29

lofixlover t1_iz126yo wrote

from the images, I wonder if versius is meant to be a single-arm robot versus the multi-arm-options of davinci? like, smaller and more affordable?

8

awardwinningbanana t1_iz17nt5 wrote

I've had a play with Versius- the arms are separate units which means you can use as many or as few as you want, and you can share them between operating theatres if e.g. your hospital has two 'brain' units. It also means you can get rid of one arm without having to move the whole robot. I haven't played with the DaVinci, but found the Versius very intuitive.

12

Jai_Cee t1_iz21r41 wrote

It is a modular unit. You have the endoscope (camera) plus as many arms as you need which is typically two or three. It is smaller and portable so you can move it easily between theatres or even different hospitals.

8

Jai_Cee t1_iz21g61 wrote

New robot. Presumably a Da Vinci could do the same procedure the article isn't clear. There are a lot of hospitals Da Vinci wouldn't be suitable for though as you essentially need to build an operating theatre around one.

7

borkborkington t1_iz2c8ss wrote

You don’t actually have to build the OR around the Davinci however. The consoles and robot itself are all able to be worked out of the room and stored elsewhere if needed. And it fits through normal OR doors that would also fit a regular bed.

5

slimboc t1_iz2tdos wrote

I designed a new DaVinci OR in an existing hospital this year. FGI has minimum guidelines for the room, the issue becomes robot positioning and use for staff. Trip hazards for the circulating and patient nurse are a major concern from the wires from the patient cart, vision cart, and surgeon console. You’re able to better contain them with overhead boom coordination that gets them off the floor. There’s also concerns about the robot approach to the patient because the operating table’s head isn’t going to do a 180 if you have a floor fed anesthesia machine / medgas. You have to plan for the robot to have good positioning at both sides. Other concerns were MEP related to make sure the robot would perform correctly in the room / not hit the overhead boom system when fully deployed.

What I’d personally be interested in is how easy it is to clean the new robot’s arms. Current DaVinci’s take a long time to be sterilized compared to conventional instruments. If the new robot can be sterilized quicker it would allow for more either more cases to be preformed or allow your sterile processing department to have some breathing room in their workflow.

4

Jai_Cee t1_iz3m7mb wrote

Versius arms are draped. Obviously the instruments need to be sterilised but you have multiple sets of them since they are consumables.

2

slimboc t1_iz3nkfs wrote

That’s a great move and exciting to hear. DaVinci arms take so much more to process in SPD since you can’t cram multiple arms into a sink basin or ultrasonics due to their size.

1

nyqs81 t1_iz2m5dw wrote

As an OR nurse you can absolutely move a DaVinci from room to room.

2

Jazzy_bear04 t1_iz0mh0j wrote

yeah my grandma was diagnosed a year ago and the treatment is genuinely awful. I can’t remember exactly why but due to her treatment she can no longer produce saliva, meaning she will most likely never be able to eat dry foods again, as well as having a bunch of other issues now. It’s always so uplifting seeing advancements to really help patients :)

18

AndIHaveMilesToGo t1_iz0wc9y wrote

My understanding is (and I could be totally wrong so anyone else feel free to correct me) is that radiation treatment targeted at the throat often times kills the salivary glands

14

[deleted] t1_iz1ctoy wrote

[deleted]

6

47q8AmLjRGfn t1_iz1zfzo wrote

I am facing this surgery plus fu stomach renoval. Having spoken to others who have gone through it many are doing well, some return to an active lifestyle including Jujitsu...of course I am only speaking to the ones who survived.

5

gloomdweller t1_iz21ysg wrote

Make sure your surgeon is doing a lot of pre-surgery teaching. Ours are bad about it and patients often come out of surgery saying “what do you mean I can’t eat or drink” or “I didn’t realize this was such a big surgery.”

Make sure you’re working hard every day even when it feels hard. Too many patients that I see do poorly want to lay in bed and do nothing, get pneumonia and that’s what sends them to the ICU. Make sure you’re getting out of bed to a chair, walking in the hall as soon as you can, make sure you do your incentive spirometer and coughing hard even when it hurts. The patients I see do well are the ones who do all of that and have strong family support. Sadly, nursing and therapists are kept too busy in modern healthcare to push patients and support them as much as they need so if you can have a family member to help you during your recovery that would be a huge asset. I’m not saying anything in the previous comment to be negative, I see a disproportionate amount of cases that go poorly and don’t remember the cases that go well because they’re gone quick and don’t come back.

8

47q8AmLjRGfn t1_izfogzx wrote

Great advice. Comments from the medical side tend to be casual during a conversation and it's not stressed enough how important it is to keep moving.

Thankfully, there are some great support websites like smartpatients where others do stress the importance in their experience. I do know they get you out of bed as soon as possible to get moving, whilst plugged into all the machines in ICU.

The info coming from the hospital is not complete. I'm on the third FLOT session tomorrow and I've only just found out that regardless of how much the tumour shrinks they still remove the tissue which was affected and shown in pre chemo pet scans / laprascopy etc. I've spent a long time trying to find extra treatment which will further shrink the tumour with the attitude to minimise surgery. A patient I'm talking to online has finished her FLOT , CT shows no tumour and she was excited to think that means minimal surgery.

Appreciate the advice, thank you.

1

RuhrowSpaghettio t1_iz25htv wrote

We still do the Ivor Lewis when we use the Da Vinci…similar complications with it.

1

UggWantFire t1_iz27ud7 wrote

My dad died from this in January this year. The side effects of the treatment left him largely unable to eat, he lost a lot of weight and then didn’t survive follow on surgeries.

I wouldn’t wish what he went through in anyone.

4

Fresh-Ad4987 t1_iz21o49 wrote

Definitely. My cardiothoracic surgeon was worried my cancer had spread to my esophagus, in which case her thought was that she wouldn’t be able to treat it surgically but using radiation only.

3

AtTheLeftThere t1_iz0d667 wrote

They did surgery on a grape

45

David-Eight t1_iz0eaap wrote

Did the grape live?

22

somdude04 t1_iz1axk6 wrote

That makes sense, don't want to end up a vegetable after surgery.

4

LookMaNoPride t1_iz1mcz7 wrote

They removed a grape from a throat with robots?! Techmology these days. Incredible!

1

PM_ME_UR_PEPE t1_iz0eyzb wrote

Smh, they are making it harder and harder to tell the difference between biological man and machine. Just look at that cold calculating mechanical force behind those soft fleshy features.

18

SlipparySnake t1_iz0hk6y wrote

Wow. Looks stunningly human

15

MeatElitist t1_iz2hdcn wrote

The next version is likely to keep the throat in the human too!

2

BizzyM t1_iz0d88q wrote

It goes in from the bottom??

1

casper86ed t1_iz0g6ot wrote

Then murders patient on wanted list in San Francisco.

1

SadLaser t1_iz0ltqi wrote

It used to, but it doesn't now. Not without better pay and benefits.

1

SnakeSkinBots t1_iz0zc5b wrote

It looks just like a human. Tech has come so far, wow.

1

Crypto_Candle t1_iz19ntg wrote

I seen this in a movie, I think it was Roadhouse.

1

GSABobby t1_iz1ce46 wrote

I’d call that robot Dalton. From the movie Road House.

1

kitkatkorgi t1_iz1e1w8 wrote

That robot is only as good as the operator.

1

LavaSquid t1_iz1fi6r wrote

This robot is used throughout Europe, but not for sale in the U.S.

1

spderweb t1_iz1mk0p wrote

Nice. I have Barrettes Esophagus and am risk for esophageal cancer. This is great news.

1

acorn937 t1_iz202js wrote

Wow, it looks so lifelike!

1

HarMarSuperstar69 t1_iz218fz wrote

Can’t wait for nurses to get replaced by robots so they can stop striking

1

ddubddub t1_iz2kqeb wrote

Used to? What does it do now?

1

insullinlover666 t1_iz2nrsz wrote

Wish my grandfather was alive to see this

1

BchLasagna t1_iz4k5uv wrote

I just downvoted your comment.

#FAQ

#What does this mean?

The amount of karma (points) on your comment and Reddit account has decreased by one.

#Why did you do this?

There are several reasons I may deem a comment to be unworthy of positive or neutral karma. These include, but are not limited to:

• ⁠Rudeness towards other Redditors, • ⁠Spreading incorrect information, • ⁠Sarcasm not correctly flagged with a /s.

#Am I banned from the Reddit?

No - not yet. But you should refrain from making comments like this in the future. Otherwise I will be forced to issue an additional downvote, which may put your commenting and posting privileges in jeopardy.

#I don't believe my comment deserved a downvote. Can you un-downvote it?

Sure, mistakes happen. But only in exceedingly rare circumstances will I undo a downvote. If you would like to issue an appeal, shoot me a private message explaining what I got wrong. I tend to respond to Reddit PMs within several minutes. Do note, however, that over 99.9% of downvote appeals are rejected, and yours is likely no exception.

#How can I prevent this from happening in the future?

Accept the downvote and move on. But learn from this mistake: your behavior will not be tolerated on Reddit.com. I will continue to issue downvotes until you improve your conduct. Remember: Reddit is privilege, not a right.

1

iAmUnintelligible t1_iz2uc2t wrote

Ok. So if that's what it used to do, what does it do now?

1

piranspride t1_iz2wtwr wrote

So THATS what happened to Chandler!!!

1

ThatDude57 t1_iz2wzfq wrote

Great, now you've gone and taught the robots to cut our throats!

1

beanjuiced t1_iz2yu5a wrote

They look SO human-like these days- amazing!

/s

1

kevcubed t1_iz2zcn6 wrote

This rendered on my phone as "New type of surgical robot used to remove throat"

Oh damn, robot uprising is not messing around.

1

rathemighty t1_iz3adi7 wrote

My dog died 3 years ago because he had a throat tumor and no one wanted to operate, as they were afraid of accidentally cutting an aorta due to the location of the tumor. This news is bittersweet, as we probably could have used it back then. But dammit, if this isn’t good news! FOR BEAR!!!

1

sniktsniktthwip t1_iz3tbh9 wrote

I hope it’s not that exploding San Francisco police robot.

1

ichankal t1_izgviwv wrote

When the fuck did a Throat Tumor Surgical Robot become a "gadget"?

1

McFeely_Smackup t1_iz0z3f7 wrote

this is obviously a big advance in medical science, but I'd be lying if I said I was totally comfortable with the idea of a robot with chopping blades shawshanking its way down my esophagus

0

jedikunoichi t1_iz293rq wrote

The robot does nothing without human input.

1

McFeely_Smackup t1_iz29h0k wrote

Yes, I think that is obvious. Did you think someone thought robots were wandering around crawling down random people's throats?

1

HIMcDonagh t1_iz2cg1i wrote

If I ever need surgery again, I sure hope it is a surgical robot and not a narcissistic meat-bot who had a grade-inflation GPA and who drank its way through some weak-tea medical school and now works on human beings as if they were chattel.

0

Dr_Esquire t1_iz11ye6 wrote

The problem with these robots is that they are mega expensive. This results in other related problems. Namely, A hospital cannot buy a lot of them. This means that the surgical residents at these hospitals can only log so many hours on the machine (at places Ive trained, it was mostly reserved for senior residents. So training is limited. Hospitals also cant really afford to have two different brands, and residents also dont really have time to learn two different brands. So again, training becomes limited.

Why is this a problem? Because training in surgery is massively important. Stuff has to become so second nature that unexpected issues need to be semi-familiar or at least things you can deal with since the main issues are happening almost in the background of your head. So by making training so difficult, it actually limits the usefulness of these robots as you have fewer people who can allocate time (sufficient time) to learn one, and even fewer that can allocate time to learn more than one.

As a total aside, Im not in surgery, so take with grain of salt, but I dont see the actual present day utility of these machines. Every robotic Ive observed in school was basically something you could do in probably half the time manually. I could very well be missing the nuances and underestimating problems that arise with manual vs robotic. And it also could be a more preparing for the future, when these machines are more useful and need ready users. But as they currently stand, I dont get the hype about robitic surgeries.

−1

terroroftoma t1_iz15c9l wrote

The robot has massively changed the game in oropharynx cancers. Before the robot we would have to split the mandible or do a lingual release to access these tumors. Especially with the healthier, younger HPV-related population, we have been able to cure their disease with limited impact on quality of life.

I’m not sure what is special about the robot in the article. I suspect it’s mostly for marketing.

19

persimmonsfordinner t1_iz1ilcj wrote

There isn’t anything particularly special about this system, it is mostly marketing. There are other systems that surgeons can use to complete the same minimally invasive procedure that have been around for a couple decades.

1

ohaikthxbai t1_iz33b7x wrote

This is not necessarily true. This new robot is modular while the older models have all instruments and camera coming from one giant unit.

It also has an open console as in the surgeon controlling the robot arms can still directly look at the patient without having to completely give up control or visualization of the machine's camera view.

1

persimmonsfordinner t1_iz3nslc wrote

These aren’t the huge benefits that CMR sells them as. The footprint of a modular robot is massive and the single-unit isn’t as restrictive as it would seem. From the care team perspective, OR footprint is a huge deal, if your hospital isn’t new with huge ORs.

I’m also not sure what the benefit of an open console is- all the MDs I’ve spoken with don’t feel disconnected in a console that they can pop their head out of quickly. It’s not like they’re in a different room than the patient?

0

ohaikthxbai t1_iz3pdof wrote

Not sure what CMR is selling to end users, I'm just speaking from seeing that modular robot in an OR and how much less space it takes up compared to the booms of the newest da vinci models. Wheeling the Versius arms around a room is faster and less burdensome than driving the massive da vinci patient cart doing 18 point turns in an OR that already has tons of other equipment. Remember with a modular robot you can choose to bring in a camera and 2 arms if that's all you need, save the space of a 3rd arm.

MDs aren't aware of what they're missing when they're buried in the da vinci console because they've been conditioned to value its "immersion". It depends on your specialty but for procedures that have the instrument arms potentially colliding, the console surgeon can't see that. They can't look at a patient scan without taking their head out. They can't see patient vitals or other activity in the room without disengaging the robot. To "pop their head out quickly" versus not pop your head out at all and use the same room awareness you'd have in an open/laparoscopic surgery has value. It's like looking through 4K binoculars instead of a 1080p panoramic view when you're captaining a ship, but the binocular manufacturer keeps selling you the fancy 4K visuals.

0

ohaikthxbai t1_iz32zu8 wrote

This is true more for tongue base tumors than predominantly tonsil tumors. You really don't need a robot to do a proper radical tonsillectomy, though a robotic platform may enable more surgeons to do a proper radical tonsillectomy.

I think what's novel about this robot is its modularity and much lower profile. It also has an open console, as in you're not tunnelling your head into a console when operating the robot - you're wearing glasses but have an open view of the OR including the patient's bedside.

I think this might confer an advantage for those who do transoral robotic surgery because with da Vinci you are still dependent on the quality of your bedside assistant to know when and how tools and the camera are colliding with the patient's teeth and with each other. With an open console you can see the patient without taking the camera view out of your field of vision.

1

jedikunoichi t1_iz290wr wrote

I'm the robotic coordinator for our operating room. We have two robots and you're right, they're very expensive, but we have no shortage of doctors who are trained in robotic surgery. One of our newest surgeons did 2 years of nothing but robots at USC in his fellowship. I have more doctors wanting to do cases then I have time to do them. They would operate 12 hours a day, 7 days a week if I let them.

Doctors don't have to be trained on robotic surgery during residency. It's nice if they can be, but Intuitive has extensive training programs and proctors. I'm sure other robotic surgery companies have similar training programs. About half of my current surgeons didn't train in residency or had minimal training when robotics was new.

5

ohaikthxbai t1_iz3477q wrote

This new system lets surgeons practice VR using an Oculus headset, which is way cheaper than an entire da Vinci console.

Not a substitute for real surgical proctoring, but makes a huge difference early in the learning curve.

Intuitive wants more surgeons to use their machines but doesn't do any real competence based training to make sure their devices are used properly - they put all that burden on hospitals so the company can't be sued for improper use or inadequate credentialing.

1

Dr_Esquire t1_iz338wr wrote

The post-residency training is still training. For people like surgeons whose baseline residencies are already very long, without getting into the medical field pushing for fellowship post-residency, any extra time is often a bigger investment than it seems.

Also, "intensive" training can be fine as catch up, but (if I had to guess) probably depends on users having some baseline understanding and ability with the machines. A 40yo who never touched one like will feel pretty wonky at the controls and a 1-3 month course likely wont fully fix that. Also, again, comfort needs to be there; you cant just use a machine to do surgery if youre not super comfortable with your mastery of it.

0

Jai_Cee t1_iz221kb wrote

This robot has a VR trainer so you could even practice at home

3

ohaikthxbai t1_iz33opb wrote

This is a great point and a considerable advantage over older robot systems. The older robot systems require you to use the actual operating console that's used in the OR to use their virtual reality training modules. That means you either do your VR training in the OR, or the hospital needs to purchase a separate robot console strictly for training.

This new system lets folks train using an Oculus, which is probably 1/1000th of the cost Intuitive charges for a standalone VR simulator.

2

rem1021 t1_iz34vkt wrote

Open surgery is faster, but patient outcomes are much better with robotic-assisted surgery. Additionally, reimbursement is typically higher for minimally invasive surgery (i.e. laparoscopic or robotic).

1

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0cn5p wrote

I think a lot of people think automation is coming for the factory line jobs. While that may be true, some of the lower hanging fruit, especially in terms of cost savings is specialized medicine. If a robot can replace one doctor making $800k that is a heck of an upgrade

−5

drunken-oracle t1_iz0cy83 wrote

This robot required two surgeons to operate. I had surgery a few months ago and my surgeon used a robot.

29

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0d42c wrote

Surgery is still very far away from true automation. But diagnostics, especially in pathology. A scanner is set to replace a whole pathology department and instead transition to one head of pathology just confirming it is working.

−8

[deleted] t1_iz0elea wrote

[deleted]

28

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0fijg wrote

I can name several departments across the country that are extremely short staffed, specifically with Pathologists. Their solution is to improve the efficiency of their current staff through these semi automated solutions. If you aren’t concerned about automation coming for these jobs, you probably are not talking with your finance department.

If you combine that with the automated nature of NGS and how it just spits out a report, this is where the industry is heading. Multiplexing is a similar story - no pathologists wants to look at these crazy complex slides all day scoring and counting. They can barely manage single color stains always complaining it hurts their eyes. At some point, the limitations of human diagnostics is going to be seen not just as a cost savings measure but a benefit to the patient. When that switch happens, although it can be gradual, it creates a profound shift in the industry that can spread rapidly.

−10

[deleted] t1_iz0m0a8 wrote

[deleted]

5

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0tiw6 wrote

It’s going to take a while, but it is happening and the increase in semi-autonomation across all areas of a hospital will only increase in pace.

One small correction to the above comment, the interpretation of NGS data is already being done by algorithm. A pathologist is only needed to view the report.

2

samziboy t1_iz0flwp wrote

It is always funny reading comments like these as someone who is in the medical field. As the other comment stated, No, computers will not be replacing any pathologist or radiologist anytime soon. Medical imaging goes beyond just identifying a lesion on an image (and even that is very difficult cus lesions can look different from person to person). Clinical context is very important. AI will help streamline their work/make things a bit faster but it will not be replacing any specialists anytime soon.

AI has not even replaced truck drivers or McDonald’s workers fully and you think it can replace specialists that take a minimum of 10 years to train?

12

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0jsbh wrote

I think if you were to go into your average hospital, you would obviously be right. But if you go to a more prestigious, larger, more specialized institution you will see a massive push with big money being spent on automation. This doesn’t mean they will be firing, or as you put it, replacing anybody.

This does mean there is a shift in how clinical labs and departments are trying to drive more throughput. They would rather spend on capital than headcount. This trend is reflected in the market report data.

2

user45 t1_iz0n077 wrote

I don’t think anyone is projecting AI/automation to replace pathologist wholesale, but it can certainly increase efficiency so fewer are needed per x number of patients. So while no one’s job is threatened currently, that’s the trend the other person is pointing out.

And I think you are grossly underestimating the difficulty of AI replacing drivers.

It may be a lot easier to train a human truck driver than a clinician but it’s far from trivial to make that same comparison for AI drivers and clinicians.

Ultra precise maps, real time software response with no slowing or freezing, pattern recognition in dark lighting, inclement weather, worn road signs, communications between AI vehicles, hackability are just a few that comes to mind. It’s much more like a generalist. The 10 years of education is probably an easier problem to solve than millions of years of evolutionary response.

2

samziboy t1_iz0pgwa wrote

The comment I replied to SPECIFICALLY talked about AI replacing an entire pathology department. I also mentioned in my comment about AI increasing efficiency.

If you wanna convince yourself that it’s easier to train AI to the level of a specialist physician than it is to drive a bus then go ahead. My point was that these problems are very complex even for AI. What exactly do you think pathologists and radiologists do exactly? I think YOU are grossly underestimating what it would require for AI to be as good as a trained specialist

Identifying a particular lesion on an image is just the bare minimum and even that is incredibly difficult even for AI. They still need huge amounts of understanding to decide whether we should treat now or wait. I can’t even begin to type out how essential these specialist are. AI will need real physicians for the foreseeable future because you need someone to make clinical judgement, something no AI is capable of doing. Imaging going to an AI to make a judgement about whether to treat your mothers cancer or not. Would you take that risk?

5

user45 t1_iz0y3xg wrote

I think that person is talking about “replacing the department” with ONE pathologist, so the repetitive, tedious portions can be automated, and a human specialist to confirm or mark exceptions - not have AI determine my grandmother’s cancer treatment.

I’m not saying it’s easier to train a bus driver, but I am challenging the notion that AI will replace blue collar worker first (or only them), and that somehow will free us up to pursue more white collar or professional careers.

And those careers are not immune, IBM’s Watson has been advising lung cancer treatment at Sloan-Kettering nearly 10 years. AI’s playing GO or Jeopardy may seem trivial but represent accelerating change in AI space and thus real challenges for many career fields. And the higher salary jobs represent that much greater incentive for automation.

I wasn’t making a jab that doctors, but the complexity of your job is no guarantee that it will be replaced only long after truck are driving themselves.

And who knows, maybe in 10 years I will be comfortable having an AI provider deciding my grandmas treatment - and I may not be the minority.

3

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz173uq wrote

It’s this 100%. This is being driven by several factors but the main one is cost. Finance departments are targeting high paying jobs and looking at what they can do without.

Think about it, you are a hospital having a horrible time with staff turnover in your breast pathology group. You have 5 headcount open for a team of 10 (15 total headcount). You have had these job openings listed since the pandemic. To meet your patients needs you have been sending out to another lab.

Now a sales rep for a medical automation company comes in and shows you examples of how you can increase your overall throughput with your current staff by switching certain tests and protocols to a digital scanner, as well improve TAT for your HEME testing to 24-48hrs.

Are you going to continue holding capital in reserve to add incremental headcount? Or are you going to outlay capital for a more efficient solution? Different HCO’s make different decisions, but the largest clinics are all diving into automation headfirst not toefirst.

6

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz15pjw wrote

I’m sorry where do I say automation is going to replace the whole department? I say incremental increasing of headcount will be curtailed due to automation increasing efficiency of current staff. You just would rather invent my words to argue against a point I never made.

You say it’s easier to replace truck drivers than doctors, but it’s not that simple. You need to think about the task being done. Is it easier for a robot to read off a genetic sequence data file or drive a car?

2

ohaikthxbai t1_iz34o8o wrote

not sure why you're getting downvoted... you're not speaking with the intent to insult pathologists, you're just stating your experience. You're getting downvoted by people who are actually potentially insecure about the effect of AI on their profession. It's a touchy subject for sure. AI is not going to suddenly replace pathologists but an AI platform might enable 1 pathologist to do the work of 5.

1

thecaramelbandit t1_iz0io3y wrote

Lol. The robots are 0% autonomous. They are completely controlled by a surgeon sitting at a station with hand and foot controls and a 3d view screen.

10

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0k39d wrote

Surgical you are totally right! Clinical chemistry, pathology, and even aspects of oncology, not so sure I agree there is 0% automation.

Also the very fact that the robot in this article is operating in the patient is the definition of semi-autonomous which I would think is the first step

−7

thecaramelbandit t1_iz0kh27 wrote

>> semi-autonomous

No. I'm an anesthesiologist. I went to medical school. I spent months scrubbed into surgeries, often with robots. I've sat at the control stations. I literally spend all day in operating rooms.

They are not semi-autonomous. They are zero autonomous. You don't know what you're talking about, at all, and you need to stop defending your 100% uninformed statement.

10

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0uevg wrote

Are you telling me there is and never will be automation in clinical workspaces because you went to medical school? Or are you saying the robots you worked with medical school are not autonomous? Did you work with every robot in the hospital or just one or two boxes?

0

Floedekartofler t1_iz1s8d3 wrote

There are not that many surgical robots on the market...

There are many autonomous machines (which I guess you could call robots) in a hospital. Autoclaves, scrub machines, blood sample analyzers. But there is a big gap from that to the work physicians perform.

1

ohaikthxbai t1_iz352g5 wrote

The Versius robot is ZERO percent autonomous during actual operation on a patient. There are elements of instrument orientation/calibration that are automated but that technology has been around a long time for operating microscopes and, wait for it, autofocus cameras.

1

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0tun4 wrote

If a robot is doing a task under control of a human that is the definition of semi-autonomous.

−1

Floedekartofler t1_iz1skku wrote

By that definition we've had semi autonomous robots since the first car in the 1800s.

2

sevo1977 t1_iz0l33i wrote

Buddy just stop. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

0

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz0tn5z wrote

How so? I work in automation in Clinical settings. Your comment is really alarming to see from a random Reddit user,

1

thecaramelbandit t1_iz1374s wrote

Your subreddits are mostly teenagers, Pokemon, dota, and crypto. I think we're done here.

4

sevo1977 t1_iz10xbf wrote

I’ve worked with robots so I know what I’m talking about. You clearly don’t so just stop.

1

Moon_Palace-banned t1_iz170px wrote

Any of those specialities you’re naming as ‘on the chopping block’ due to automation…that automation will still have to be verified by a set of human eyes. AI can have a massive databank of scans but nothing has replaced the eyes of experienced doctors when it comes to discrepancies or additional testing.

0

Nerabumami t1_iz0not7 wrote

Sorry, but no way doctors are replaced anytime soon. As someone designing these robots, I can guarantee you we very far away from that. These robots help surgeons be more precise, make surgeries quicker and help with planning, but they will not run surgeries by themselves in the foreseeable future.

2

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz17k6p wrote

Doctors are not going to be replaced but their efficiency will be improved so we will be able to do more testing with fewer headcount. If you design these robots, you already know this happening. Easiest example is NGS workflow. A pathologist in a thread above said “obviously NGS is automated, what are we going to do count every sequence” Tens years ago (maybe 15) that’s literally what they did lol

0

Floedekartofler t1_iz1t29m wrote

Sanger sequencing was invented in 1977 and according to Google the first commercial automated system using this method was brought to market in 1987.

NGS was not a revolution in robotics. It was a revolution in biotech that enabled new and faster ways to sequence

1

GlowforgePokemon62 t1_iz27wb4 wrote

So your point is that NGS is just as automated as Sanger sequencing? Tell that to the tech who has to hybridize every single codon on their early aughts Hitachi hahah

1

SiscoSquared t1_iz0obnm wrote

robots assisted surgery is considerably more expensive than open or laparoscopic in most cases, the robots also require additional training and are operated by surgeons, they are not autonomous

2

Pezdrake t1_iz22md7 wrote

Robots will be able to replace anyone. My wife was arguing there are some things that need a human touch. I'm in social work. She argued no way a robot can do that but there are already crude but improving chat bots for therapy.

1

TactlessTortoise t1_iz04mtj wrote

Is it the San Francisco robot?

−6

drunken-oracle t1_iz0d30f wrote

It will shoot you but will also remove the bullet and stitch you back up.

5

TactlessTortoise t1_iz12wp0 wrote

No, you're off the loop. The police chief said it won't have a gun, just bombs.

It blows the cancer away.

5

drunken-oracle t1_iz13kju wrote

Makes sense. That way any collateral damage would be considered preventative ontological care. A win for society!

1

insaneinsanity t1_iz0ahxm wrote

Don't do this. Heavily increases the risk of multi-modality treatment.

−9

drunken-oracle t1_iz0d7q7 wrote

How so?

3

insaneinsanity t1_iz0ju0h wrote

Short version: The throat surgeons who use this technology rarely remove the whole tumor. Then the patient needs radiation and/or chemotherapy to fix the residual. This happens in nearly 80% of those patients who undergo the robot surgery.

So, 3 treatments instead of 1 or 2.

−1

drunken-oracle t1_iz0kwmt wrote

I’ve read that doctors can actually remove more of the tumor using robotic surgery.

2

insaneinsanity t1_iz0pzr2 wrote

That is incorrect.

−2

drunken-oracle t1_iz0qafa wrote

With all due respect, that is the opinion of actual surgeons. I tend to trust them in matters regarding surgery.

7

insaneinsanity t1_iz0ria7 wrote

/shrugs/ Surgeons generally will say whatever the hell they want.

The only thing that actually matters is the pathology report.

And the pathology reports for patients treated with robotic trans-oral resections of throat tumors leave residual tumors a large proportion of the time.

−2

drunken-oracle t1_iz0rn0q wrote

To be fair, so will people on the Internet.

6

insaneinsanity t1_iz0sea2 wrote

/shrugs/ Read the papers yourself.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34699271/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31416685/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360301621028121

1

drunken-oracle t1_iz0uo6a wrote

I read them but didn’t find anything about it.

3

ohaikthxbai t1_izab8uc wrote

You're right because the articles don't support his claim see my post next to yours

2

insaneinsanity t1_iz0wb9l wrote

You read the actual papers?

1

ohaikthxbai t1_izab64w wrote

The OP's article seems to be talking about esophageal cancer not HPV related oropharynx.

ECOG 3311 demonstrates the value of robotic surgery in the deintensification of adjuvant therapy. Doesn't support your argument at all.

ORATOR 2 is a highly problematic trial - their two surgical arm mortalities were far more suggestive of issues with post-op care (in-hospital trach bleed) and surgical/radiation technique (spine infection AFTER radiation).

The surgeons in the ORATOR 2 trial had a morbidity profile that does not reflect any case series, trial, or database study based in the US. They were routinely doing tracheostomies, and they were not credentialing surgeons the way they did in E3311.

Personally the only useful information from the ORATOR 2 trial is: Don't get surgery with any of the surgeons who participated in the ORATOR 2 trial.

2

ohaikthxbai t1_izabgn1 wrote

What do you define as a "large proportion" and can you post a study that supports this claim.

/shrugs/ seems like you have no idea what you're talking about.

2

ohaikthxbai t1_izabnal wrote

This is 100% a false claim, read further down in this comment thread this clown has no understanding of the evidence in this field.

1