Robotic op: The latest version of the da Vinci robot, a $2.5 million technology, allows two surgeons to operate together.
Emily Singer/Technology Review

Biomedicine

The Slow Rise of the Robot Surgeon

Robot-driven procedures are popular, but surgeons say the technology isn't evolving quickly enough.

  • Wednesday, March 24, 2010
  • By Emily Singer

An eight-year-old girl lies in an operating room in Children's Hospital Boston, propped up on one side, ready for surgery. She had been complaining of pains in her side, and a scan revealed a blockage in her left kidney.

In most hospitals, she'd get a six-inch slice down her abdominal wall, giving surgeons access to her kidney during open surgery, and would then spend four to five days recovering in the hospital. But this Monday morning she is about to undergo a robotic surgical procedure. In about three hours, she'll leave the operating room with a one-inch incision covered by a regular Band-Aid. She'll most likely return home the next day.

Surgeon Hiep Nguyen, a specialist in pediatric urology and robotic surgery, says the da Vinci robot has greatly expanded the complexity of the minimally invasive surgeries he can perform. It offers three-dimensional vision and articulated tips on the surgical tools that go inside the patient, which allows for smaller, finer movements than traditional laparoscopy. At a recent talk in Boston, Nguyen described complex reconstructive surgeries--fashioning a urethra from an appendix, for example--that just a few years ago would have required open surgery.

But after the talk, rather than expressing wonder or hope over these new surgical possibilities, many of the surgeons, scientists, and engineers in the audience focused on their frustration with the technology. The group had varying concerns--if and when the robot will outperform traditional laparoscopy; the learning curve associated with the technology; whether it allows less experienced surgeons to perform more complex surgeries. But everyone agreed on two points. The technology isn't advancing fast enough or dropping in price quickly enough. "The system is very expensive because only one company makes it now," says Nguyen. "We need more competition to drive down price."

Advertisement

The da Vinci robot is made by California-based Intuitive Surgical, the only big player in the robotic surgery arena (some other companies make robotic systems for eye and brain surgery). The company, founded in 1995, adapted technology originally developed for long-distance surgery--an application quickly abandoned--and created a broad patent portfolio around robotic surgery. It bought up early competitors, garnering Food and Drug Administration approval for its surgical system in 2000. And that's largely where things have stood for the last decade.

"People have been disappointed in how slowly the robot is evolving," says Jon Einarsson, a gynecological surgeon at Brigham and Women's hospital in Boston. "There hasn't been a lot of evolution or improvement in the articulation at the tip of the instrument." Some innovations that Einersson would like to see are haptics--a sense of touch that can be translated from the robotic instruments to the surgeon--and a way to incorporate data from magnetic resonance imaging.

Video

Some surgeons and engineers argue that a much smaller and cheaper device could provide the same visual advantages and flexibility, but that no one has been able to move this forward. "The da Vinci robot looks like it was designed to make automobiles--it's great big clunky gear," says Kirby Vosburgh, an engineer with the Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology (CIMIT), in Boston, who previously designed medical technology for General Electric.

Print

Related Articles

Snakelike Robots for Heart Surgery

More-flexible robots could allow for less-invasive operations.

Robotic Guidance for Knee Surgery

A robotic system enables minimally invasive knee replacements.

Surgical Robots Get a Sense of Touch

Johns Hopkins researchers have developed a feedback system for surgical robots, which lack subtle sensations.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

fiberman

186 Comments

  • 692 Days Ago
  • 03/24/2010

Is this part of the problem not the solution?

Isn't a $2.5 million gadget of questionable usefulness just another reason that medical costs are growing at a ridiculous pace? Im betting the for-profit medical business is the next big bubble - it's already unaffordable.

Reply

pjduncan

20 Comments

  • 692 Days Ago
  • 03/24/2010

Re: Is this part of the problem not the solution?

I think the economic usefulness would lie in reduced days in the hospital and fewer complications due to a less invasive procedure.

Having had non-laparoscopic abdominal surgery, I can also vouch for the significant cost to individuals in recovery time (and lost productivity) that can be saved by minimally invasive procedures.  Only after being sliced open the old fashioned way can one really appreciate the advancement this represents.

Reply

jhains2

17 Comments

  • 691 Days Ago
  • 03/25/2010

Re: Is this part of the problem not the solution?

Is it part of the problem?

Let's say the robot is used for three surgeries per day and each patient has their hospital stay reduced automatically by 3 days. that is 9 days of hospitalization saved...generating huge healthcare savings.

Now, let's further postulate that using the old method, 1 out of 9 patients experienced a post-surgical infection and required another 5 days of hospitalization. If the da vinci simply cut that rate of infection in half, it is saving even more hospital days...

So, in sum, I think that this technology would not have been so widely adopted as it has been if it were not extremely cost effective.

Keep in mind, I made these statistics up for illustrative purposes only.

JH

Reply

erbium

340 Comments

  • 687 Days Ago
  • 03/29/2010

2.5million $ gadget expensive?

Advanced gadgets need to be expensive to begin with to finance development.  

The real revolution in use of course comes after prices drop and you then are in awe of capabilities and value received by increased productivity.

To put it in the way of an 'expensive useless gadget', a prime example is cell phones.

For those of you not too busy uselessly texting friends in classes or while walking across against the walk signal at a light, you may remember cell phones were VERY EXPENSIVE, were the size of a brick (rent move 'atlantic city' for example of this) and had limited features, range, battery life, etc.

So as an addition to the them of 'scientific revolutions' book, I'd suggest that the real revolution occurs at the time people are least thinking it is a revolution.  It occured for me with cell phones when they eventually came down in price below $40/month, lost the horrid low capacity batteries and reduced energy use thru years of refinement of microcircuitry. 

THe real revolution in this case occured with a yawn rather than a bang!  I even gave up my 'land line'.  And when data prices come down a bit more I'll get a smart phone so I can see traffic when i leave somewhere on the other side of the universe to go home.

Many of my sci-fi stories (plus the common stuff like star wars attack of the clones) have automated medical devices and robotic surgery.  As you mentioned it will have to get better and come down in price.  By then it will be so common place we will accept it as standard.

I'm not plugging one way of funding medicine or the other but I have the feeling that the govt takeover of medicine will stifle innovation in this and some other areas.   We americans seem to always want the best  but now we are increasingly unwilling or unable to afford it.  There are only so many $ which congress and the people demanding free handouts don't seem to realize.

Reply

Guest (aarontco)

  • 687 Days Ago
  • 03/29/2010

Re: 2.5million $ gadget expensive?

Is anyone fooled by the propaganda phrase "government takeover of health care"?  How is asking private individuals to buy private insurance, from companies who then work with private hospitals and doctors a "government takeover" of anything?  There is still no "public option", which seems strange, given that it is supposed to be a government takeover. 

As far as your point on development of technology, the real question is what the most effective way of developing new technologies is.  Experts I have talked to in management of technology (I know several PhDs in the field) hold that it is a total myth that "free enterprise" is the only way to develop advanced technology.  Often times a government infusion of capital is the only way to get these super expensive technologies off the ground.  Look at Apollo or the development of digital electronics in general.  Without massive government money in the form of defense spending, computers never would have become cheap enough for everyone to own.  IBM predicted that worldwide demand would be less than a dozen. 

Reply

Guest (aarontco)

  • 689 Days Ago
  • 03/27/2010

cheaper technology is needed

I few points should be raised.  Firstly, why is the cost of keeping a patient in a hospital after surgery so high?  Rather than trying only to minimize hospital stay, how about technology that can allow people to stay in the hospital at a reduced cost?  Automating some of the expensive tasks associated with hospital stays would seem to be where it's at in terms of controlling costs, if we are to believe this article.

Granted, I think it's great to develop as many minimally-invasive procedures as possible.  However, it sounds like Da Vinci only produces better outcomes in a small number of specialized surgeries.

That brings me to the second point.  According to the medical professionals interviewed in this article, they believe that they can get comparable performance to Da Vinci using far simpler, cheaper, more compact technology.  This is particularly important for areas like the developing world who can't be throwing around $2.5 million for the latest gadget. 

I will also add that, personally, I believe this highlights the need for reform in the current patent conventions.  I am all for intellectual property, if it actually results in a useful product.  I am not for the idea that you can buy up patents for the purpose of hoarding them and stopping the technology from being used.  I also think we need to make patents far less broad, so it is harder to monopolize vast swathes of technology.  I favor a "use it or lose it" standard.  If others can show that a patent-holder is only producing a token amount of a product, or none at all, then it does not serve the public good, but rather harms it to grant them the privilege of exclusion.  Classical economists made a similar observation about people who hoarded assets like food and would rather let them rot than allow starving people access to them.  In such cases "usufructary rights", and eminent domain for that matter, have been invoked in the past, and could/should be in the case of intellectual property as well. 

As for patent broadness, a patent basically is a legal monopoly on a certain type of product.  Like all monopolies, they need to be carefully regulated, because they can often end up being abused and used as vehicles of extortion, far beyond any reasonable level of compensation for the fair value of the product.  In the same way that we would not allow a single company to dominate a whole industry, or to have vertical holdings across many industries, we need to think about mechanisms to regulate this in the arena of intellectual property.   Anti-competitive practices are regulated in other areas of business, and that needs to be the case in patent law, because competition is the only thing that keeps free enterprise honest.  I tend to think that the "use it or lose it principle" could help here too, because a broad patent is less likely to be used in all its conceivable incarnations.

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

The Virtual Nurse Will See You Now

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Lyric Semiconductor

Nissan

Applied Materials

PrimeSense

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement