Zusammenfassung
Computerunterstützte Systeme sind heute aus dem medizinischen Alltag nicht mehr wegzudenken, auch wenn ihr Nutzen in aller Regel nicht in prospektiv-randomisierten Untersuchungen beschrieben wurde. Während in der industriellen Arbeitswelt computerunterstützte robotische Systeme aufgrund ihrer Präzision und Ausdauer uneingeschränkt akzeptiert werden, gibt es im medizinischen Bereich heftige Diskussionen über den Nutzen bei deutlich erhöhten Kosten. Zumindest perioperative Vorteile (weniger Blutverlust, kürzere Verweildauer) sind inzwischen aber weitgehend unbestritten. Die erhöhten Kosten lassen sich durch hohe Fallzahlen zumindest partiell kompensieren: Erst durch die Behandlung hoher Patientenzahlen lassen sich einerseits die Vorhaltekosten/Fall reduzieren. Andererseits gewährleistet auch nur die hohe Fallzahl einen routinierten Umgang mit dem komplexen System, womit die Komplikationswahrscheinlichkeit vermindert und betriebswirtschaftliche Vorteile durch verkürzte Operationszeiten realisiert werden können.
Abstract
Today, one can hardly imagine the medical daily routine without computer-assisted systems, although their benefit usually is not investigated by prospective randomised trials. While in the industrial working environment computer-assisted systems are thoroughly accepted because of their precision and endurance, in medicine there are fierce debates about their use at considerably high costs. At least the perioperative advantages (e.g. less blood loss, shorter period of hospitalization), to a large extent, are beyond dispute. The high costs may be compensated by a higher volume of treated patients. Only the treatment of a higher volume of patients will lead to a reduction of infrastructure costs per case. On the other hand, only a large number of cases ensure the achievement of skills to handle such a complex system. This, in return, reduces the chance of the occurrence of complications and shorter operation times will lead to economic advantages.
Literatur
Feußner H, Can S, Fiolka A et al (2010) Leistungsfähigkeit, Risiken und Vorteile des Einsatzes der Robotik in medizinisch-operativen Disziplinen. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 53:831–838
Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA et al (1988) A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. Biomedical Engineering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35:153–160
Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B (2008) Robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 85:1880–1885
Bonatti J, Schachner T, Bonaros N et al (o J) How to improve performance of robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Surg 195:711–716
Kam JK, Cooray SD, Kam JK et al (2010) A cost-analysis study of robotic versus conventional mitral valve repair. Heart Lung Circ 19:413–418
Anderson C, Ellenhorn J, Hellan M et al (2007) Pilot series of robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 21:1662–1666
DeNoto G, Rubach E, Ravikumar TS (2006) A standardized technique for robotically performed sigmoid colectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:551–556
Kang CM, Chi HS, Kim JY et al (2007) A case of robot-assisted excision of choledochal cyst, hepaticojejunostomy, and extracorporeal Roux-en-y anastomosis using the da Vinci surgical system. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:538–541
Harvey A, Bohacek L, Neumann D et al (2011) Robotic thoracoscopic mediastinal parathyroidectomy for persistent hyperparathyroidism: case report and review of the literature. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:24–27
Kim YT, Kim SW, Hyung WJ (2008) Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 108:312–316
Advincula AP (2006) Surgical techniques: robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Int J Med Robot 2:305–311
Malley D, Boris R, Kaul S (2008) Synchronous bilateral adrenalectomy for adrenocorticotropic-dependent Cushing’s syndrome. JSLS 12:198–201
Hubert J, Siemer S (2008) Nephrectomy, donor nephrectomy, and partial kidney resection: Indications for robot-assisted renal surgery. Urologe A 47:425–430
Mottrie A, Schatteman P, Fonteyne et al (2008) Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. Urologe A 47:414–419
Hemal AK, Abol-Enein H, Tewari A et al (2004) Robotic radical cystectomy and urinary diversion in the management of bladder cancer. Urol Clin North Am 31:719–729
Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB (2010) Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Critical Review of Outcomes Reported by High-Volume Centers. J Endourol 24:2003–2015
Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P et al (2011) A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur J Urol 59:1–6
Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R (2010) Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur J Urol 57:196–201
Stöckle M, Siemer S (2008) Robot-assisted (da Vinci) laparoscopy: the beginning of a new era in operative urology? Urologe A 47:409–413
Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs – the case of robotic-assisted surgery. NEJM 363:701–704
Anderberg M, Kockum CC, Arnbjornsson E (2009) Paediatric robotic surgery in clinical practice: a cost analysis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:311–315
Ranea A, Autorinob R (2011) Robotic natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: current status. Curr Opin Urol 21:71–77
Meining A, Feussner H, Swain P (2011) Natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in Europa: summary of the working group of the Euro-NOTES meeting 2010. Endoscopy 43:140–143
Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, Lehman AC (2010) In vivo miniature robots for natural orifice surgery: state of the art and future perspectives. WJGS 27:217–223
Interessenkonflikt
Der korrespondierende Autor weist auf folgende Beziehung hin: Proctering für Intuitive Surgical Systems.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Siemer, S., Stöckle, M. Robotische Medizin in Deutschland: quo vadis?. Urologe 50, 928–931 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2543-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2543-5