As many of you have been told that some of the qualities that a surgeon must possess for them to perform surgery are, great communication skills, a bright mind, and the one we’re going to be changing your mind about are their hand-dexterity. While they do have astounding hand-dexterity many will tell you how that they’re not born with that gift but instead develop it from years of experience. But now with the rise of ever-advancing computers, the need for this type of skilled hands is not as essentials with surgeons. All thanks to the development of remote manipulators like the da Vinci Surgical System, Zeus systems, or others like it; such as the neurosurgical navigational system tested by Osaka University Medical School in 1991. the use of these types of innovations going back to the 1980s when a telemanipulator is also known as “Waldo” was first used in neurosurgery. Showcasing in its first test how beneficial Computer-assisted Surgery would be in the developing field of microsurgery and other surgeries that require precision. Something that older surgeons might not be capable of anymore; as well as new coming surgeons that while qualified to perform the surgery based on knowledge; but might not have the hand dexterity to perform it.
As mentioned before two examples of this type of system where the da Vinci Surgical System and Zeus systems. With both having similar components of a surgeon console, three robotic arms, the only difference that the da Vinci system had a vision cart separate from the controller, and the Zeus system having a computer controller that provided the vision (gill, 2001). The article also informs you about how the da Vinci Surgical System and Zeus systems can prove to have successful Pyeloplasty procedures. While both telemanipulators were approved by the FDA, the overall one that is praised as the superior telemanipulator always seems to be the da Vinci system with the article stating that “it was quite apparent that the da Vinci System had a shorter learning curve and allowed considerably more intuitive execution of surgical maneuvers compared with the Zeus System.” and having a shorter surgical time for pyeloplasty procedures. (gill, 2001).
The other provided example for a computer-assisted surgery system was the neurosurgical navigational system developed by Osaka University Medical School in 1991. This system was fairly different from that of the Zeus system and da Vinci system as in the words of the article the “system has eliminated the arm, and ensures the real-time monitoring of the operative manipulation without restricting conventional open neurosurgery.” (Amami Kato M.D., May 1991). Choosing to instead focus on aiding the vision of the surgeon by providing guidance on vital incisions made to the brain; providing information about how deep the incision should be and where allowing the incision to miss arteries that would otherwise be cut. This was demonstrated in the articles given “case 2” where thanks to the system providing information during a meningioma surgery, the tumor was able to be removed without damaging any arteries near the site of operation.
On the other hand, Computer-assisted Surgery (CAS) is widely debated due to the downsides that it poses. One of the hindrances to fame CAS in the OR is the fact that many still don’t trust in the use of a machine as they can be flawed and have technical problems in the middle of an operation. Information about these problems being document on the fifth page of the article “robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and Zeus systems”. The Zeus system being specifically flawed as its arm would malfunction and lose grasping force on four occasions, and each time having an interval of 15 seconds before restoring function (gill, 2001). 15 seconds being detrimental to a person as if the cut was a large blood vessel like the abdominal aorta, the patient’s hemorrhage would ensue death in only 20 seconds. A mere 5-second difference until the arm regains full function. The Zeus system wasn’t the only one that had complications during testing, but the highly praised da Vinci had the same flaws as its competitor. Another article by the name of “Is Robotic Surgery Right for You?”, points at another fatal flaw that CAS has and it that “hysterectomies performed with the da Vinci robot had no better outcomes than those done through laparoscopic surgeries.” Making the use of a Telemanipulator just absolute at the moment.
Finally, it may be concluded that the use of Computer-assisted Surgery is still a debatable topic due to the success of the operation being that about the same in many surgeries. But it can’t be overlooked that the technology is still rapidly advancing; as it was only 40 years ago that the first telemanipulators were being tested and now today where they’re rivaling surgeons in the less complex surgeries and even surpassing them in a more intricate operation like microsurgeries. With this being said, the technology is still not to the point where no supervising surgeon is needed but all it takes for a machine to replace a person is for it to make fewer mistakes than a person.
Works Cited
Howard, Beth. “Robotic Surgery Risks and Benefits – Is a Robot Right for You.” AARP, AARP The Magazine, 2013, www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-12-2013/robotic-surgery-risks-benefits.html.
Kato, Amami, et al. “A Frameless, Armless Navigational System for Computer-Assisted Neurosurgery.” Jns, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group, 1 May 1991, thejns.org/view/journals/j-neurosurg/74/5/article-p845.xml.
Sung, Gyung Tak, and Inderbir S Gill. “Robotic Laparoscopic Surgery: a Comparison of the Da Vinci and Zeus Systems.” Urology, Elsevier, 8 Dec. 2001, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0090429501014236.
