Robotic surgery Presentation

overview History of Robotic Surgery with Images Litigation Associated with Robotic Surgery Pros and Cons of Robotic Surgery

History of robotic surgery Medicine began with industrial robots first. In 1983, the world’s first surgical robot was created in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (All About Robotic Surgery, 2014). The team that created this surgical robot was Dr. James McEwen and Geof Auchinlek along with orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Brian Day. This robot was called the “Arthrobot.” Figure 1 displays an illustration of this first robotic surgery device.

Arthrobot

HISTORY OF ROBOTIC SURGERY In 1985, a new robotic surgical device was created that for a brain biopsy using CT guidance to place a needle (All About Robotic Surgery, 2014). This robotic device is called the Puma 560. Figure 2 illustrates what the Puma 560 looks like.

Puma 560

HISTORY OF ROBOTIC SURGERY As you can see, just two years later the robotic surgical devices began looking more modern in its technological design compared to the more industrial look of the Arthrobot. Three years later in 1988 there was the creation of the Probot that was created at Imperial College London (All About Robotic Surgery, 2014). This robotic surgical device was used to perform prostatic surgery. Figure 3 has an illustration of the Probot.

PROBOT

HISTORY OF ROBOTIC SURGERY You can see from the image how more advanced the Probot compared to the Puma 560. The Probot seems to be more incorporated into the framework of medical technology rather than as an attachment to the process of the surgical procedures itself. This would help to facilitate the ease of use for surgeons to perform surgery as well. In 1992 the Robodoc was created from the company Integrated Surgical Systems. The purpose of this robotic surgical device was to sift through precise fittings in the femur of hip replacements (All About Robotic Surgery, 2014). Figure 4 shows an image of the Robodoc.

ROBODOC

HISTORY OF ROBOTIC SURGERY A company called Intuitive Surgical began the da Vinci Surgical System and Computer Motion (All About Robotic Surgery, 2014). The surgical devices that were created were the Aesop and the Zeus robotic surgical devices. Figures 5 and 6 respectively show an illustration of these devices.

AESOP

ZEUS

LITIGATION AND ROBOTIC SURGERY Litigation after cybersurgery, i.e. remote robotic surgery, will be complex. In addition to being able to sue physicians and hospitals, patients who sustain an adverse outcome after cybersurgery will have the potential to sue the robotic manufacturer and the telecommunications company. Moreover, cybersurgery litigation will involve laws that are generally unfamiliar to healthcare providers. Accordingly, this article examines a lawsuit involving a robotic surgical instrument as a model to suggest where liability traps may arise during the delivery of cybersurgery (McLean, 2007).

PROS AND CONS OF ROBOTIC SURGERY Surgery is too important of an element of the human healthcare system to ever completely replace highly skilled technicians who are surgeons. A human would always need to be present due to the complexity of using robotic surgery. Mind you, it is humans as mentioned throughout this essay who have created robotic surgery. Humans are far smarter than to put themselves into a situation where they create something that will have them lose their jobs as highly paid surgeons and technicians.

REFERENCES All About Robotic Surgery. (2014). “Background and History of Surgical Robotics,” All About Robotic Surgery. United States. Retrieved from: http://allaboutroboticsurgery.com/roboticsurgeryhistory.html Lanfranco, A. R., Castellanos, A. E., Desai, J. P. & Meyers, W. C. (2004, January). “Robotic Surgery: A Current Perspective,” Annals of Surgery. New York: Lippincott, Williams & Williams. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1356187/ McLean, T. (2007). The complexity of litigation associated with robotic surgery and cybersurgery. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 3(1), 23-29. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17441022