Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_2870_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
14 Мб
Скачать
☆
110 New Medical Technology in Patient Care: A Physician’s Guide

Cost Implications

It’s important to note that the initial investment in RAS technology is significant, and the cost-effectiveness of these systems is still a subject of ongoing research. While there are efficiency gains, they need to be bal­anced against the high costs of acquiring and maintaining robotic surgery systems.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite these advancements, there are challenges in the widespread adop­tion of medical robots. specialized training for healthcare professionals, and potential technologi­cal failures are significant considerations. Additionally, the integration of these systems into existing healthcare workflows can be complex.
103
The high cost of these technologies, the need for

Conclusion

In conclusion, medical robots have brought about substantial improve­ments in hospital efficiency and patient safety. Their applications in sur­gery, pharmacy, and patient monitoring have demonstrated tangible benefits. However, addressing the challenges related to cost, training, and integration is essential for maximizing their potential. As technology con­tinues to advance, medical robots will likely become even more integral to healthcare delivery.

Workforce Implications

The integration of medical robots into healthcare settings has significant implications for the workforce. These implications are multifaceted, affecting various aspects of healthcare delivery, workforce dynamics, and skill requirements.

Job Redefinition and Role Shifts

The introduction of robotic technology in medical procedures is signifi­cantly redefining job roles and responsibilities within the healthcare
Robots in Medicine 111
sector. This transformation is especially pronounced in areas where tasks traditionally performed manually are becoming automated, leading to multifaceted and profound implications.
The introduction of robots in medical procedures and care can rede­fine job roles.
104
In the realm of surgery, the role of the surgeon is undergo­ing a notable transition. Surgeons are moving away from direct manual intervention to roles that often involve controlling and guiding robotic systems. This shift necessitates the development of a new skill set, includ­ing proficiency in robotic systems and an in-depth understanding of their operation and limitations. Additionally, the surgeon’s role is becoming more analytical, with a focus on interpreting data provided by robotic systems to make informed decisions during procedures.
Robotic systems are also bringing about advancements in surgical pre­cision and control, enabling surgeons to perform complex procedures with greater accuracy. This enhancement is paving the way for the development of new, minimally invasive surgical techniques that were previously unfea­sible with traditional methods. Consequently, surgeons must continuously update their skills to effectively leverage these new techniques.
The roles of nurses and technicians are evolving alongside these tech­nological advancements.
105,106
They are increasingly taking on responsi­bilities in the setup, operation, and maintenance of robotic systems, which requires additional training. Moreover, their roles in patient care are shift­ing, with a greater focus on preoperative and postoperative care as robots handle more tasks during the operation.
This technological shift in surgery also necessitates a more interdisci-
plinary approach to healthcare.
107
Healthcare professionals are finding themselves collaborating more closely with engineers, robotic techni­cians, and data scientists. This collaboration is essential for the smooth operation and integration of robotic technology in medical procedures. It requires healthcare professionals to develop not only communication skills but also an understanding of technical language to effectively work alongside these new team members.
For instance, tasks that were traditionally manual may become auto­mated, leading to a shift in the roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals. Surgeons, nurses, and technicians may need to adapt to working alongside robots, focusing more on monitoring and supervisory
108
roles.
112 New Medical Technology in Patient Care: A Physician’s Guide

Medical Education and Training

The integration of robotic technology is also influencing medical educa­tion and training.
109
Curricula are adapting to include training in robotic systems, encompassing both technical operation and decision-making aided by robotic technology. As technology evolves rapidly, continuous professional development becomes crucial for healthcare professionals to keep pace with these advancements.
110
With these changes in roles and responsibilities come new ethical and legal considerations, particularly regarding liability in robotic surgery. Healthcare professionals must understand these aspects and how they impact their practice. Despite the increased use of technology, the impor­tance of patient interaction remains paramount. Healthcare professionals must find a balance between their technical responsibilities and patient care, ensuring that the human element of medicine is preserved.

Training and Skill Development

There is a growing need for specialized training in robotics technology. Healthcare professionals will need to acquire new skills to operate, inter­pret, and interact with robotic systems effectively.
112–114
This requirement spans from technical know-how to understanding the integration of robot­ics in patient care.
111

Workforce Efficiency and Productivity

Robots can enhance efficiency and productivity in healthcare settings by performing tasks more quickly and accurately than humans in certain scenarios.
115
This can lead to a more efficient allocation of human resources, where healthcare professionals can focus on patient care aspects that require human judgment and empathy.

Job Creation and Loss

The adoption of robotics in healthcare can lead to job creation in areas such as robotic maintenance, programming, and system management. However, it may also lead to job displacement in roles that become
116
Robots in Medicine 113
automated.
105
Researchers at MIT, who have studied the effect of robots on employment, state, “Our evidence shows that robots increase produc­tivity. They are very important for continued growth of firms, but at the same time they destroy jobs, and they reduce labor demand.”
117
The net impact on employment will depend on how the healthcare sector adapts and integrates these technologies.

Ethical and Legal Considerations

With the rise of medical robots, there will be an increased need for ethical guidelines and legal frameworks addressing issues such as patient safety, data security, and liability in cases of malfunctions or errors.
118
This will require collaboration between healthcare professionals, legal experts, and policymakers.

Patient–Provider Interaction

The use of robots might alter the dynamics of patient–provider interac­tions. Assistive social robots are used to in the care of the elderly, while helpful are not a substitute for personal care. In her book Alone
Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each
120
Other,
Sherry Turkle argues that social interactions with robots provide superficial emotional comfort and an ersatz intimacy. This substitute for human interaction not only deepens a patient’s loneliness but also tends to infantilize them. Healthcare professionals will need to balance the techno­logical aspects of care with the human elements, ensuring that patient communication and empathy are not compromised.
119
and

Economic Impact

The integration of medical robots into healthcare settings marks a pivotal shift toward advanced care delivery. The initial investment in these sys­tems, while substantial and impacting budget allocations, is often offset by long-term benefits such as improved efficiency, reduced error rates, and enhanced patient outcomes.
Capital expenditure for medical robots, including surgical robots,
rehabilitation robots, or pharmacy automation systems, is significant.
114 New Medical Technology in Patient Care: A Physician’s Guide
This cost encompasses the robot itself, necessary infrastructure modifica­tions, training for healthcare professionals, and maintenance contracts. Implementing robotic technology also requires comprehensive training for medical staff, which can be both time consuming and expensive. Moreover, integrating these systems into existing workflows may demand significant organizational change management.
Over time, the benefits become more apparent. Robots can operate continuously, performing tasks more quickly and accurately than humans in certain contexts. For instance, pharmacy robots can dispense medica­tions rapidly with high accuracy, reducing waiting times and allowing pharmacists to focus on more critical tasks. In surgical applications, robots provide high precision, leading to fewer complications and shorter hospital stays.
This enhanced efficiency and accuracy lead to better patient through­put. Hospitals can treat more patients with the same or even fewer resources, improving the utilization of hospital beds and facilities. Additionally, once implemented, robotic systems can be updated and scaled, potentially extending their utility beyond their initial scope. This adaptability can lead to sustained improvements in hospital operations and patient care.

Conclusion

In summary, the workforce implications of medical robots are complex and encompass changes in job roles, skill requirements, efficiency, employment patterns, ethical considerations, patient interactions, and eco­nomic impacts. These changes necessitate a proactive approach in work­force planning, training, and policy development to fully leverage the benefits of robotics in healthcare.

References

1. Kurup G. CyberKnife: a new paradigm in radiotherapy. J Med Phys. 2010 Apr;35(2):63–64. doi:10.4103/0971-6203.62194. PMID: 20589114; PMCID: PMC2884306.
Robots in Medicine 115
2. Adler JR Jr, Chang SD, Murphy MJ, Doty J, Geis P, Hancock SL. The Cyberknife: a frameless robotic system for radiosurgery. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1997;69(1-4 Pt 2):124–128. doi:10.1159/000099863. PMID:
9711744.
3. Robotic-Assisted Surgery with da Vinci Systems. Intuitive Surgical.
2024. https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/patients/da-vinci-robotic-surgery. Accessed 2023 Dec 12.
4. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911.
5. Shyr BU, Shyr BS, Chen SC, Chang IW, Shyr YM, Wang SE. Operative results and patient satisfaction after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Asian J Surg. 2020;43(4):519–525. ISSN 1015–9584. doi:10.1016/j. asjsur.2019.08.012.
6. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(27):1–118.
7. Hussain A, Malik A, Halim MU, Ali AM. The use of robotics in surgery: a review. Int J Clin Pract. 2014;68:1376–1382.
8. We Believe Minimally Invasive Care Is Life-Enhancing Care. Intuitive.
2021. https://www.intuitive.com/en/about-us/company. Accessed 2023 Dec 30.
9. Strattner. Why Strattner? 2020. http://www.strattner.com.br. Accessed 2023 Dec 30.
10. Intuitive Surgical. Annual Report 2014. Sunnyvale, CA: Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; 2014.
11. Wong SW, Ang ZH, Yang PF, Crowe P. Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics. J Robotic Surg. 2022;16:241–246. doi:10.1007/ s11701-021-01240-5.
12. Prasad SM, Prasad SM, Maniar HS, Chu C, Schuessler RB, Damiano RJ Jr. Surgical robotics: impact of motion scaling on task performance. J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Dec;199(6):863–868. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.08.027. PMID: 15555968.
13. Wu S-Y, Chang C-L, Chen C-I, Huang C-C. Comparison of acute and chronic surgical complications following robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and traditional open radical prostatectomy among men in Taiwan. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Aug 25;4(8):e2120156. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.
2021.20156.
116 New Medical Technology in Patient Care: A Physician’s Guide
14. Maertens V, Stefan S, Rutgers M, Siddiqi N, Khan JS. Oncological out­comes of open, laparoscopic and robotic colectomy in patients with trans­verse colon cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2022 Oct;26(10):821–830. doi:10.1007/s10151-022-02650-9. Epub 2022 Jul 8. PMID: 35804251.
15. McAlpine K, Forster AJ, Breau RH, McIsaac D, Tufts J, Mallick R, et al. Robotic surgery improves transfusion rate and perioperative outcomes using a broad implementation process and multiple surgeon learning curves. Can Urol Assoc J. 2019 Jun;13(6):184–189. doi:10.5489/cuaj.5527. PMID: 30407153; PMCID: PMC6570603.
16. Plerhoples TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wren SM. The aching surgeon: a survey of physical discomfort and symptoms following open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2012;6(1):65–72.
17. Lee G, Lee M, Clanton T, Marohn M. Comprehensive Assessment of
Skill-Related Physical and Cognitive Ergonomics Associated with Robotic and Traditional Laparoscopic Surgeries. Los Angeles: Sages.
https://www.sages.org/meetings/annual-meeting/abstracts-archive/compre­hensive-assessment-of-skill-related-physical-and-cognitive-ergonomics­associated-with-robotic-and-traditional-laparoscopic-surgeries/. Accessed 2024 Dec 18.
18. Long E, Kew F. Patient satisfaction with robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2018 Sep;12(3):493–499. doi:10.1007/s11701-017-0772-3. Epub 2017 Dec
29. PMID: 29288373.
19. Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:292–298.
20. Darr C, Cheufou D, Weinreich G, Hachenberg T, Aigner C, Kampe S. Robotic thoracic surgery results in shorter hospital stay and lower postop­erative pain compared to open thoracotomy: a matched pairs analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):4126–4130. doi:10.1007/s00464-017-5464-6. Epub 2017 Mar 8. PMID: 28275918.
21. Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z, Han J, Song W, Wang J, et al. Robotic versus laparo­scopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:61.
22. Sucandy I, Rayman S, Lai EC, Tang CN, Chong Y, Efanov M, et al. International robotic, laparoscopic liver resection study group investigators. Robotic versus laparoscopic left and extended left hepatectomy: an interna­tional multicenter study propensity score-matched analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(13):8398–8406.
23. Kalata S, Thumma JR, Norton EC, Dimick JB, Sheetz KH. Comparative safety of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA Surg. 2023;158(12):1303–1310. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389.
Robots in Medicine 117
24. Jaffray B. Minimally invasive surgery. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(5): 537–542.
25. Catto JWF, Khetrapal P, Ricciardi F, Ambler G, Williams NR, Al-Hammouri T, et al. Effect of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion vs open radical cystectomy on 90-day morbidity and mortality among patients with bladder cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327(21):2092–2103. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7393.
26. Ng A, Sanaiha Y, Bakhtiyar S, Ebrahimian S, Branche C, Benharash P. National analysis of cost disparities in robotic-assisted virus laparoscopic abdominal operations. Surgery. 2023;173:1340–1345.
27. Intuitive Surgical. Annual Report. Sunnyvale, CA: Intuitive Surgical, Inc.;
2020.
28. What Makes da Vinci Robotic Surgical Systems Unique? Intuitive Surgical.
2024. https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/products-and-services/da-vinci#:~: text=What%20makes%20da%20Vinci%20robotic%20surgical%20sys­tems%20unique%3F&text=For%20nearly%20three%20decades%2C%20 Da,%2Dreviewed%20in%2034%2C000%2B%20articles. Accessed 2023 Dec 12.
29. Tam V, Rogers DE, Al-Abbas A, Borrebach J, Dunn SA, Zureikat AH, et al. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: a large health system’s experience with the first 300 cases and review of the literature. J Surg Res. 2019;235:98–104. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.070.
30. AlphaGo. Google DeepMind. https://deepmind.google/technologies/ alphago/. Accessed 2023 Dec 17.
31. Alaska Airlines. 2021. https://news.alaskaair.com/newsroom/alaska-air­lines-and-airspace-intelligence-announce-first-of-its-kind-partnership-to­optimize-air-traffic-flow-with-artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learn­ing/. Accessed 2023 Dec 17.
32. Setting the Standard in Infrastructure Solutions. Utilities One. 2024. https:// utilitiesone.com/satellite-based-remote-surgery-advancing-medical-care­from-space. Accessed 2023 Dec 17.
33. Pakkasjärvi N, Luthra T, Anand S. Artificial intelligence in surgical learn­ing. Surgeries. 2023;4(1):86–97. doi:10.3390/surgeries4010010.
34. Exploring New Advancements in Robotics. Intuitive. 2024. https://www. intuitive.com/en-us/about-us/newsroom/exploring-new-advancements-in­robotics. Accessed 2023 Dec 17.
35. Shademan A, Decker RS, Opfermann JD, Leonard S, Krieger A, Kim PC. Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery. Sci Transl Med. 2016 May 4;8(337):337ra64. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aad9398. PMID:
27147588.
118 New Medical Technology in Patient Care: A Physician’s Guide
36. Amodei D, Olah C, Steinhardt J, Christiano P, Schulman J, Mané D. Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565; 2016.
37. Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Leveson N, Kalbarczyk Z, Iyer RK. Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(4):e0151470. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151470.
38. Ferrarese A, Pozzi G, Borghi F, Marano A, Delbon P, Amato B, et al. Malfunctions of robotic system in surgery: role and responsibility of sur­geon in legal point of view. Open Med. 2016;11(1):286–291.
39. Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Haas EM. Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):855–860.
40. Gkegkes ID, Mamais IA, Iavazzo C. Robotics in general surgery: a system­atic cost assessment. J Minim Access Surg. 2017 Oct–Dec;13(4):243–255. doi:10.4103/0972-9941.195565. PMID: 28000648; PMCID: PMC5607789.
41. Feldstein J, Schwander B, Roberts M, Coussons H. Cost of ownership assessment for a da Vinci robot based on US real-world data. Int J Med Robot. 2019 Oct;15(5):e2023. doi:10.1002/rcs.2023. Epub 2019 Jul 15. PMID: 31215714.
42. Vijayakumar A, Abdel-Rasoul M, Hekmat R, Merritt RE, D’Souza DM, Jackson GP, et al. National learning curves among robotic thoracic surgeons in the United States: quantifying the impact of procedural experience on efficiency and productivity gains. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;167:869–
879. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.07.051. Epub 2023 Aug 9. PMID: 37562675.
43. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–698. doi:10.1001/ jama.2013.186.
44. Jeong IG, Khandwala YS, Kim JH, Han DH, Li S, Wang Y, et al. Association of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with perioperative outcomes and health care costs, 2003 to 2015. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1561–
1568. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.14586.
45. Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs — the case of robot-assisted surgery. New Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):701–704.
46. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Tergas AI, Herzog TJ, Burke WM, Lewin SN, et al. An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1038–1048.
47. Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yan J, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage
Robots in Medicine 119
cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1905–1914. doi:10.1056/ NEJMoa1804923.
48. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–1904. doi:10.1056/ NEJMoa1806395.
49. Daniel GW, Rubens EK, McClellan M. Coverage with evidence develop­ment for Medicare beneficiaries: challenges and next steps. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(14):1281–1282. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6793.
50. Kammüller F. Combining secure system design with risk assessment for IoT healthcare systems. IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops). 2019;961–966. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2019.8730776.
51. Balakrishna S, Thirumaran M, Solanki VK. IoT sensor data integration in healthcare using semantics and machine learning approaches. A Handbook of Internet of Things in Biomedical and Cyber-Physical System. Cham: Springer; 2020;275–300.
52. Zabczyk C, Blakey JD. The effect of connected “smart” inhalers on medica­tion adherence. Front Med Technol. 2021 Aug 18;3:657321. doi:10.3389/ fmedt.2021.657321. PMID: 35047916; PMCID: PMC8757760.
53. Okamura AM, Simone C, O’leary MD. Force modeling for needle insertion into soft tissue. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004;51(10):1707–1716. doi:
10.1109/tbme.2004.831542.
54. Pradhan B, Bharti D, Chakravarty S, Ray SS, Voinova VV, Bonartsev AP, et al. Internet of things and robotics in transforming current-day healthcare services. J Healthc Eng. 2021 May 26;2021:9999504. doi:10.1155/2021/
9999504. PMID: 34104368; PMCID: PMC8158416.
55. Gatouillat A, Badr Y, Massot B, Sejdic E. Internet of medical things: a review of recent contributions dealing with cyber-physical systems in medicine. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018;5(5):3810–3822. doi:10.1109/ jiot.2018.2849014.
56. Nasiri S, Sadoughi F, Tadayon MH, Dehnad A. Security requirements of internet of things-based healthcare system: a survey study. Acta Inform Med. 2019 Dec;27(4):253–258. doi:10.5455/aim.2019.27.253-258. PMID: 32055092; PMCID: PMC7004290.
57. Calabrò RS, Cacciola A, Bertè F, Manuli A, Leo A, Bramanti A, et al. Robotic gait rehabilitation and substitution devices in neurological disor­ders: where are we now? Neurol Sci. 2016;37(4):503–514.