Is robotic surgery really as advantageous as it is portrayed to be? Or is it a mere exaggeration?

When the first robotic surgery was performed in the mid-1980s, no one foresaw the large influence it would have on future generations. Now, robotic surgery has become ubiquitous in hospitals around the world, being deployed to assist thousands of operations. Robotic-assisted surgery allows physicians to carry out complex procedures with the added benefit of robotic precision, control and flexibility. Following the momentous discovery of laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive method involving small incisions resembling that of a keyhole, many people surmised that robotic surgery would have a similar impact. Conversely, this wasn’t the case, and the evidence associated with robotic surgery has been less compelling than expected. So how did a seemingly ingenious scientific discovery fall short in the real world, inadvertently creating more issues? Before learning the answer to that, it is vital to understand what fundamentally makes scientific technology successful in the healthcare industry. I believe that it boils down to three main factors, benefit to the patient, benefit to the staff and economic sustainability. Firstly it must offer patient benefit, in terms of better outcome, lower risks and a more pleasant experience overall. Technology should minimise health risks to staff and should enhance fluency and dexterity in their workflow. They should offer financial sustainability, ideally cutting costs in the long run. Though it is very hard for technology to check all three boxes, simply meeting one of these requirements can have a large effect on the healthcare industry. So now let’s apply this same concept to robotic surgery. Has robotic surgery increased the welfare of patients? Studies show varying results, and some types of procedures yield better outcomes than others. When performing prostate surgery, urologists found outcomes for the famed da Vinci robotic surgery to be notably better than traditional laparoscopic surgery, now being adopted in more than 90% of such procedures. Furthermore, in an article detailing the differences between non-robotic and robotic cardiac surgery, significantly lower mortality was seen in patients undergoing robotic-assisted procedures. Not to mention less discomfort, blood loss, scarring and quicker recovery. The outcomes of gynecologic surgery, however, have not been as fortunate. A study conducted with 250,000 patients found that the outcomes of the da Vinci robotic surgeries were no better, rather had higher rates of complications than manual surgery. This proves that the patient benefit is relative to the type of surgery, and it is necessary to weigh both benefits and losses when deciding upon the best method of surgery. What about staff? Has robotic surgery shown a positive impact on that front? Unsurprisingly, robotic surgery offers a considerable number of perks to staff and physicians, providing procedural control, robotic precision and radiation protection. The CorPath GRX robotic system for example, allows physicians to operate remotely, lessening the exposure to harmful ionising radiation issuing from CT scans. That way, staff do not have to jeopardize their own health in the process of saving others. Additionally, surgical robots are designed to make the surgeons’ job as easy as possible, angling the screen and tools in a way that allows for natural command and better control. Finally, do surgical robots promote financial gain or loss? The incremental costs associated with the da Vinci procedure is no mystery, ranging from $3000 to $6000 more than keyhole surgery. The cost of production, installation and operation of these elaborate machines all constitute large factors. Interestingly, hospitals often take advantage of the general perception that robots are better, investing in advanced technologies as a means of marketing and attracting clients. Whether these tactics work in the long run, we still don’t know. What we do know is that allowing technology to persist and evolve allows for parallel development, branching out into an array of endless possibilities. So what can we take away from all that information? Well, to sum it up, surgical robots do meet some of the requirements needed for successful technology, and this is definitely reflected in the healthcare industry today. Whether it is significantly or only marginally better than traditional laparoscopic surgery, I believe that the invention of robotic surgery is a key step in the journey of scientific development in the healthcare industry. In a few years time, surgeons might be able to operate remotely, or won’t have to at all! Who knows?