Skip to main content
Log in

Robotische Medizin in Deutschland: quo vadis?

Robotic medicine in Germany: quo vadis?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B (2008) Robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 85:1880–1885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. DeNoto G, Rubach E, Ravikumar TS (2006) A standardized technique for robotically performed sigmoid colectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:551–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim YT, Kim SW, Hyung WJ (2008) Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 108:312–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Advincula AP (2006) Surgical techniques: robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Int J Med Robot 2:305–311

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Malley D, Boris R, Kaul S (2008) Synchronous bilateral adrenalectomy for adrenocorticotropic-dependent Cushing’s syndrome. JSLS 12:198–201

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hubert J, Siemer S (2008) Nephrectomy, donor nephrectomy, and partial kidney resection: Indications for robot-assisted renal surgery. Urologe A 47:425–430

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mottrie A, Schatteman P, Fonteyne et al (2008) Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. Urologe A 47:414–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stöckle M, Siemer S (2008) Robot-assisted (da Vinci) laparoscopy: the beginning of a new era in operative urology? Urologe A 47:409–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs – the case of robotic-assisted surgery. NEJM 363:701–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderberg M, Kockum CC, Arnbjornsson E (2009) Paediatric robotic surgery in clinical practice: a cost analysis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:311–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ranea A, Autorinob R (2011) Robotic natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: current status. Curr Opin Urol 21:71–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor weist auf folgende Beziehung hin: Proctering für Intuitive Surgical Systems.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Siemer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2543-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation