Comment FOLLOW THE MONEY! (Score 1) 99
As you might surmise, I am a heart surgeon, and I have used the DaVinci system. (FYI the precursor is housed in the MIT tech museum on campus).
An unfortunate trend in medicine (particularly when it comes to the heart), is that marketing an idea/gizmo (and owning stock in the company) is extremely lucrative, as the delivery of heart care is highly competitive, and lots of money can be made if you are the "first" in your area to have a "new" technology. Hence, there is high interest in offering the latest procedure to people, in the hopes of drumming up business.
This, however, runs straight into the dictum in medicine to "don't be the first, and don't be the last" to adopt a new procedure/treatment/medicine.
The reason for the dictum is that real people's lives are at stake, and medical history (including the present) is replete with medications and procedures and treatments that were supposed to be "great" and turned out to actual harm people, after being evaluated in wide public usage. For a example from This week, just look at the recent HIV vaccine trial, that actually made people WORSE rather than better.
Oh by the way, in surgery, its the SURGEON, not the tools that matter. As for the DaVinci...in cases I've seen, it takes a straight forward operation ("traditional" mitral valve repair for example) that could be completed in 2-3 hours with less than 1% risk of death or serious complication, and turns it into a day long affair with worse results...in addition, you need a $1,000,000 machine (which needs a hefty service contract to maintain), more personnel, a bigger operating room,...you get my drift....I am unaware of ANY published study that proves the superiority of the DaVinci system in heart surgery, over traditional surgeries, when evaluating mortality (death rate), and morbidity (complication rate).
NOW, if you happen to be a paid consultant for the DaVinci company, or you have stock options in the company....it's great!!
If your the poor joe that gets his heart operated on by someone who has secondary gain involved in his decision making process...God Bless....
Follow the money!!!
Does that mean the system is bad? Not at all, its a tool...in the right hands, for the right purpose, it may be ideal.
What would I want done, if I needed heart surgery....go to a surgeon, and ask him/her what their results are (death rate, complication rate), and choose the best results....would i ask if they used a robot or did the surgery "off-pump" or what kind of artificial valve they preferred, etc, no..because that doesn't matter if your death or maimed....
An unfortunate trend in medicine (particularly when it comes to the heart), is that marketing an idea/gizmo (and owning stock in the company) is extremely lucrative, as the delivery of heart care is highly competitive, and lots of money can be made if you are the "first" in your area to have a "new" technology. Hence, there is high interest in offering the latest procedure to people, in the hopes of drumming up business.
This, however, runs straight into the dictum in medicine to "don't be the first, and don't be the last" to adopt a new procedure/treatment/medicine.
The reason for the dictum is that real people's lives are at stake, and medical history (including the present) is replete with medications and procedures and treatments that were supposed to be "great" and turned out to actual harm people, after being evaluated in wide public usage. For a example from This week, just look at the recent HIV vaccine trial, that actually made people WORSE rather than better.
Oh by the way, in surgery, its the SURGEON, not the tools that matter. As for the DaVinci...in cases I've seen, it takes a straight forward operation ("traditional" mitral valve repair for example) that could be completed in 2-3 hours with less than 1% risk of death or serious complication, and turns it into a day long affair with worse results...in addition, you need a $1,000,000 machine (which needs a hefty service contract to maintain), more personnel, a bigger operating room,...you get my drift....I am unaware of ANY published study that proves the superiority of the DaVinci system in heart surgery, over traditional surgeries, when evaluating mortality (death rate), and morbidity (complication rate).
NOW, if you happen to be a paid consultant for the DaVinci company, or you have stock options in the company....it's great!!
If your the poor joe that gets his heart operated on by someone who has secondary gain involved in his decision making process...God Bless....
Follow the money!!!
Does that mean the system is bad? Not at all, its a tool...in the right hands, for the right purpose, it may be ideal.
What would I want done, if I needed heart surgery....go to a surgeon, and ask him/her what their results are (death rate, complication rate), and choose the best results....would i ask if they used a robot or did the surgery "off-pump" or what kind of artificial valve they preferred, etc, no..because that doesn't matter if your death or maimed....
