Friday, February 3, 2012

Why robotic cholecystectomy may not become the standard way to remove a gallbladder

I have written in the past about robotic surgery pointing out that there is no proof that it is better than regular laparoscopic surgery.[Here and here]

Some think I am a Luddite. Other asked if I remembered all the naysayers 20 years ago who said that laparoscopic surgery was unnecessary. The answer is “Yes, but this is different.”

Here is why robotic cholecystectomy may not be the standard of care in the future.

Yesterday, a former resident of mine asked me if I thought he would be excluded from performing gallbladder surgery if he did not take a course in robotic surgery. I said I didn’t think so but since this thing is being marketed so heavily, it may become consumer-driven. He then told me that the hospital where he works has only one robot.

The lights came on.

There are about 700,000 cholecystectomies done in the US every year. How many robots would have to be purchased at $1.5M apiece to accommodate the volume? General surgeons would also be competing for use of the robot with gynecologists, urologists and colorectal surgeons, to name a few.

Will it be practical for busy hospitals to buy three or four robots? Are there more important things to spend health care dollars on? I think so.

2 comments:

T. said...

Hi,
I do not believe that volumen would be a hard limit here. Currently there are over 1550 da Vincis in the US. There are 5500 hospitals. Intuitive and Titan assumes there is a placement opportunity for around 5-8000 robots, depending on their capabilities. even at the current occcurance, that means only 10 R-chole/robot/week. That is not that farfetched number! Although the current average usage rate for the robot falls behind this number.
I think it's more about the fact that lapchole is still a valid, competitive alternative, and a lot cheaper.
T. surgrob.blogspot.com

Skeptical Scalpel said...

Dear T.

I appreciate the comment but I hope you are wrong. At $1.5M per robot placing 5000 more would cost $7.5 billion for an unproven technology.

Post a Comment