Surgery at the Hands of a Robot - Article Review Paper Example

Can you easily accept any surgery at the hands of a robot? Though human beings have been trusting automated machines to perform day to day operations, trusting a four-armed robot with life, have been identified as a difficult affair. In August of 2013, glass and Knight wrote an article on CNN with an intention to reduce the fear of the robotic surgical system. The writer intended to reduce the fears associated with robot surgery. The writer seems to achieve that goal by clearly stating that highly trained and experienced humans control the robot surgery. During the robotic surgery by the Da Vinci surgical system requires the surgeon to work from a computer console. The console is usually located at the operating room. The surgeon, therefore, controls miniaturized instruments to make tiny incisions in the patient. To magnify the surgical part of the body, the surgeon uses the 3-D camera usually attached to the robotic arm (Yoo, Shi-Joon, et al). Transmission of surgeon's hand, wrist and finger movements is done through computer consoles attached to an arm of a robot. Despite the introduction of interesting facts about the robotic surgery, the writers fail to identify challenges associated with the system. The article fails to identify the costs and risks associated with the surgery and therefore fail to properly educate patients as per the objective.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In the article, the writers indicate that the company had conducted a robotic surgical operation to more than 1.5 million individuals. The most common operations include gynecological procedures, general abdominal surgeries, and thoracic operations. Despite the number of operations, the majority of Americans seems reluctant to embrace robotic operations. The article also explains the benefits associated with robotic surgery. Such benefits include small incisions and reduced risk of infections. Robotic surgeries are also estimated to reduce blood loss and transfusions. Due to the high degree of dexterity, surgeons can operate in tight body spaces not accessible through open surgeries (Diodato, Alessandro, et al). The main benefits of robotic surgeries, therefore, include great visualization, enhancement of dexterity and great precision. The robotic surgeries are hence less painful and less scarring. Surgeons can, therefore, conduct complex surgical tasks. David Rosa, from Da Vinci creators, explained that sitting down at the console enables one to do such things not posible using any other method. The article also cites Dr. Myriam Curet, one of the pioneers of robot surgery systems. After developing the robotic procedure and operating on an obese patient, Dr. Curet insisted that operation went as planned and that it was impossible using traditional systems.

The writer also identifies that the robotic system has its distracters. On that note, the writers highlighted the concerns raised by Dr. Martin Makary from John Hopkins Medical Institute who indicated that many people are not aware of robotic surgery limitations. For instance, the Achilles heel of the robotic surgery could not feel the tissues; hence the surgeon can make inadvertent injuries to main structures. Despite the unique challenge, the writers introduce the financial data surrounding the robot sales. More than 2500 robots had been sold all over the world generating revenues more than $2 billion by 2012. The article concludes by indicating a possibility of increased use of robots in the future. However, the information presented as evidence to support the use of robots in surgery lacks credible sources. The producers of the supporting information also seem to be biased. It is not appropriate to conclude that the worldwide sale of 2500 robots is an indication of the successful use of such robots. The article, therefore, lacks credible sources as well as appropriate counter-evidence.

According to Dr. Adam Ramin from Diplomate American Board of Urology, most of the robotic surgery procedures are highly technical, and most surgeons are not properly trained. The robotic surgery systems are not available in all locations. The implication is that patients are required to travel long distances to get such surgeries. Other health risks as a result of robotic surgeries include clots in leg veins, incontinence, infections and erectile dysfunction. The article does not adequately cover information relating to such health risks. The article, therefore, lacks a credible basis for patients to make robotic surgery decisions.

Glass and knight had a good intention to educate learners and patients on developments related to robot surgery system. However, the writers did not present readers with both sides of the robotic system. The writers concentrated more on the benefits of the robotic surgery and were quiet about the risk associated with such surgery. Robotic surgeries should be conducted by surgeons with extensive experience in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. A surgeon who has previously done more than 200 of such surgeries can be trusted. Robotic surgeries should also be conducted from centers of excellence that support high tech robotic systems and programs. Readers are therefore advised to conduct further research on robotic surgeries to get balanced information about such surgeries.

Works cited

Diodato, Alessandro, et al. "Soft robotic manipulator for improving dexterity in minimally invasive surgery." Surgical innovation 25.1 (2018): 69-76.

Yoo, Shi-Joon, et al. "Hands-on surgical training of congenital heart surgery using 3-dimensional print models." The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 153.6 (2017): 1530-1540.