3 ms·

Hmm, there's no mention of error rates / mistakes. 24,000 operations without error is quite possible. If the robot reduced the chance of catastrophe by 5x (to

Hmm, there's no mention of error rates / mistakes. 24,000 operations without error is quite possible. If the robot reduced the chance of catastrophe by 5x (to pluck a figure from thin air) it may well pay for itself even at an extra $3k per patient. Would you trade $5k for a 5x reduction in never waking up ?

marcell 9y ago
The article claims error rates were comparable: > However, the two approaches have comparable patient outcomes and lengths of hospital stay, the study showed.
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  No real error rates though, as I said, it is easy to imagine none occurred in just 28k operations. What if the error rate was (in extremis) 1 death in 50k for non assisted and 1 death in 500k for assisted. The extra cost might be justified on that basis.
readams 9y ago
They said the outcomes are comparable.
- bryanchen 9y ago
  I think what PeachPlum is saying is that the words "the outcomes are comparable" has already injected an interpretation into the data, which, if not revealed in the article, is difficult to agree with.
  - wavegeek 9y ago
    You are right in that it looks like the robots had a lower incidence of major complications but the P value was short of "statistical significance" (i.e. 0.05) so it was not considered proven. This is a long way from saying "there was no difference".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ReallyAnonymous 9y ago
surgeon here - the "robot" is not a robot - you 100% control the instruments. It just allows the instruments to mimic the movements of your hands inside the body, without the big incisions. I've sent patients with lymph nodes between the vena cava and the portal(not the game)vein to robotic surgeons bc the robot can be more precise than me laparoscopically
- defined 9y ago
  > It just allows the instruments to mimic the movements of your hands So it's more of a waldo[1] than a robot. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator

marcell 9y ago

The article claims error rates were comparable: > However, the two approaches have comparable patient outcomes and lengths of hospital stay, the study showed.

PeachPlum 9y ago
No real error rates though, as I said, it is easy to imagine none occurred in just 28k operations. What if the error rate was (in extremis) 1 death in 50k for non assisted and 1 death in 500k for assisted. The extra cost might be justified on that basis.

readams 9y ago

They said the outcomes are comparable.

bryanchen 9y ago
I think what PeachPlum is saying is that the words "the outcomes are comparable" has already injected an interpretation into the data, which, if not revealed in the article, is difficult to agree with.
- wavegeek 9y ago
  You are right in that it looks like the robots had a lower incidence of major complications but the P value was short of "statistical significance" (i.e. 0.05) so it was not considered proven. This is a long way from saying "there was no difference".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ReallyAnonymous 9y ago

surgeon here - the "robot" is not a robot - you 100% control the instruments. It just allows the instruments to mimic the movements of your hands inside the body, without the big incisions. I've sent patients with lymph nodes between the vena cava and the portal(not the game)vein to robotic surgeons bc the robot can be more precise than me laparoscopically

defined 9y ago
> It just allows the instruments to mimic the movements of your hands So it's more of a waldo[1] than a robot. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator