Computer-Assisted Robotic Surgery Annotated Bibliography Sample
Childers, C. P., & Maggard-Gibbons, M. (2018). Estimation of the acquisition and operating costs for robotic surgery. Jama, 320(8), 835-836. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.9219
In this article, the authors examine the cost effectiveness and the clinical benefits of the use of robotic platforms in performing surgical procedures. To achieve this, the authors extracted and summarized data relating to sales revenue sources and approximate procedure volumes and established that robotic surgical procedures have a large and increasing market, despite a lack of significant cost and outcome benefits to patients.
Further, the paper asserts that the detail and expertise involved in robotic surgical procedures, that often require intensive and sustained training for perfection, makes them considerably inaccessible since only select facilities with the resources to train and improve their workforce can afford the technology. This publication offers valuable insight into some of the constraints towards increased adoption and integration of robotics-assisted surgery into contemporary, widescale medical practice.
ORDER YOUR CUSTOM PAPER HERE
Sheetz, K. H., & Dimick, J. B. (2019). Is it time for safeguards in the adoption of robotic surgery? Jama, 321(20), 1971-1972. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3736
The paper examines the trends in the use of robotics-assisted surgery in contemporary medical practice and shows that their adoption and integration into practice has increased 3-fold over the last decade. According to the authors, the US is presently the largest market for robotics technology by procedure volume, having recorded over 600,000 use instances in 2017. Despite this increasing adoption, the authors note the existence of questionable benefits associated with the technologies.
For instance, while citing a ROLLAR randomized trial involving patients that underwent low anterior resection for rectal cancer either through laparoscopic or robotic-assisted technology, the authors noted no significant differences in the rates of complications. Additionally, the authors point to potential harm associated with the robotics-assisted technology, noting that rapid adoption of minimally invasive surgery was responsible for an observed decline in 4-year relative survival rates among patients suffering from early-stage cervical cancer. This article, therefore, offers crucial information into the efficacy of robotics-assisted surgeries.
Rao, P. P. (2018). Robotic surgery: new robots and finally some real competition! World Journal of Urology, 36(4), 537-541. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00345-018-2213-y
The article highlights the fact that robotics technology remains largely a monopoly for certain companies in relation to certain procedures, a factor that curtails its growth, expansion and improvement. For instance, Rao (2018) notes that over the last 20 years, the predominant robotics technology used in laparoscopic surgery has been that provided by Intuitive Surgical, an aspect that has resulted in high costs of use and slow invention of related technologies. Given this backdrop, the author examines new robotic devices that are equally effective in laparoscopic surgery, and how these new technologies can potentially upset the market initially dominated Intuitive Surgical’s Da Vinci tool. The author further explores the present state of robotics-assisted surgery and what they portend for the future of medical robotics.
Sayari, A. J., Pardo, C., Basques, B. A., & Colman, M. W. (2019). Review of robotic-assisted surgery: What the future looks like through a spine oncology lens. Annals of Translational Medicine, 7(10). https://dx.doi.org/10.21037%2Fatm.2019.04.69
In this article, the authors contend that surgical oncology, gynecology, and urology, where visualization, tissue retraction maneuvers are the leading medical fields with the forefront use of robotic-assisted surgery. In gynecologic oncology, RS has been employed in managing endometrial and cervical cancer, while robot-assisted partial nephrectomies have set the stage in urology. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has been employed as well in cardiothoracic surgeries.
However, the authors note that in neurosurgery, the adoption of RS has been slower owing to the inherent complexities of the procedures involved, but resection of paravertebral tumors, presacral tumors, and biopsies have been reported with varying success. The article identifies equipment costs and lagging times in surgery as the main hindrances against expanded RS adoption in the field. The overview on RS adoption offers insights into the niche for robotic systems, as well as the likely evolution of RS for future medical practice.
Stewart, C. L., Ituarte, P. H., Melstrom, K. A., Warner, S. G., Melstrom, L. G., Lai, L. L., Fong, Y. & Woo, Y. (2019). Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample. Surgical Endoscopy, 33(8), 2591-2601. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-018-6554-9
In this study, the authors contend that while most medical institutions offer robotic surgery, the extent of its use in general surgical oncology remains poorly understood. The study, however, hypothesized that its use has been increasing annually in the US. To establish the trend, the authors identified instances where surgical resection was used to intervene in patients presenting with site-specific malignancies. The data was obtained from the National Inpatient sample recorded between 2010 and 2014, and an operation marked as robotic if it involved the use of ICD-9-CM robotic procedure code.
Based on the data, the authors deduced that the US registered a five-fold increase in robotic surgery over the five-year study period compared to the preceding years. Further, the study established that a patient was 5.6 times more likely to undergo a robotic operation in 2014 compared to earlier years, with the data adjusted for age and comorbidities.
Computer-Assisted Robotic Surgery Annotated Bibliography Sample References
Childers, C. P., & Maggard-Gibbons, M. (2018). Estimation of the acquisition and operating costs for robotic surgery. Jama, 320(8), 835-836. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.9219
Rao, P. P. (2018). Robotic surgery: new robots and finally some real competition! World Journal of Urology, 36(4), 537-541. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00345-018-2213-y
Sayari, A. J., Pardo, C., Basques, B. A., & Colman, M. W. (2019). Review of robotic-assisted surgery: what the future looks like through a spine oncology lens. Annals of Translational Medicine, 7(10). https://dx.doi.org/10.21037%2Fatm.2019.04.69
Sheetz, K. H., & Dimick, J. B. (2019). Is it time for safeguards in the adoption of robotic surgery? Jama, 321(20), 1971-1972. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3736
Stewart, C. L., Ituarte, P. H., Melstrom, K. A., Warner, S. G., Melstrom, L. G., Lai, L. L., Fong, Y. & Woo, Y. (2019). Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample. Surgical Endoscopy, 33(8), 2591-2601. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-018-6554-9