Four-armed surgical robot joins Edmonton hospital staff

While dexterous robots have been helping surgeons in America for some time, Edmonton's Royal Alexandra Hospital is finally getting with the program. Beginning in September, a four-armed surgical robot will be used in procedures to treat prostate cancer, and should provide a much improved in-depth view of the body as well as boosting overall agility while operating. One of the diminutive arms will grasp a camera while the others wield the tools, and trained surgeons will be controlling the action from a three-dimensional screen positioned at a nearby base. Notably, one of the primary reasons Canada has been slower to adopt this type of technology is the price, and while it did cost some $4 million to purchase and retrofit the system into the OR, the shorter recovery time and improved precision whilst operating will certainly prove worthwhile to the average patient.

[Johnny Appleseed @ Aug 5th 2007 4:12AM]

Ok..why did you have to hyphenate "four-armed." I was really hoping you wouldn't so I would believe that the robots were Armed; the Title should read: "Four heavily armed surgical robot joins Edmonton hospital staff."

Now no one will support me in building my underground bunker for the impending robot invasion.

Thanks for ruining my day, Engadget. Maybe Gizmodo has a different take on this story.

[strider_mt2k @ Aug 5th 2007 8:33AM]

Four warned is four armed.

[SYN @ Aug 5th 2007 5:08AM]

like it matters. all the cool people go to the U of A hospital anyways.

[xavier @ Aug 5th 2007 5:21AM]

they do?

why would they want to pay when it free in canada?

[Josh @ Aug 5th 2007 1:36PM]

Dear politicos,

Don't turn this into an idiotic Nationalized Healthcare debate.

With lots of love,
Josh

[Aaron @ Aug 5th 2007 7:04PM]

Actually, the original post contains what could easily be construed as a political
reference - the mention that Canada has been "notably" slow to adopt the latest and greatest, presumably due to the socialized nature of our health care system. While this may or may not be true in general, I'm not sure it's relevant to this particular story, as Alberta is rolling in oil revenue, and has been for some time.
There is no shortage of cash in the provincial coffers. The Canadian medical system is, however, quite cautious when it comes to adopting new tools - Health Canada in particular tends to watch new drugs introduced into the States for a couple of years before approving them, cost aside.

[MattC @ Aug 6th 2007 5:46AM]

I'd say that the information about Canada being slower to implement the technology is a necessary qualifier: otherwise, this isn't such big news (Da Vinci systems are in place already in other hospitals, such as those in the US). I'd like to point out that the article stated that one of the /primary/ reasons for the delay is cost (not the only reason) - and whatever your feelings about socialized medicine, there is definitely more bureaucracy involved when it comes to signing off on any significant spending.

Whoever suggested that the Canadian drug market is more controlled than the US is full of it, however. A lot of questionable drug purchases in the US are imported from Canada, because of relatively lax standards. If Canada is sluggish to adopt new drugs, I think the blame can be placed on bureaucracy before any intentional wait-and-watch.

[Jeff Lewis @ Aug 6th 2007 1:16PM]

MattC,

No disrespect, but how about checking rather than speculating? Canada has the same if not stricter level of drug quality controls as the US. In repeated surveys, the quality of Canadian drugs (which are made mostly by Canadian branches of US drug companies anyway) are comparable to US drugs.

Here's one example:
http://www.theannals.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/7/1111
and
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/med/internet_e.html

The problem isn't Canadian-made drugs - it's sites set up by people who are buying drugs from outside of Canada and then drop selling them through a Canadian remailer - which is illegal. For what it's worth, you can find these within the US as well.

It also has to be noted that Health Canada has typically put far stricter rules on drug claims than the US, obligating a higher level of proof of efficacy and safety. They're even implementing these rules on natural remedies and homeopathic 'drugs' (much to the chagrin of the practitioners of these systems).

As for the Canadian beurocracy slowing down purchases, again, check the facts. The Canadian and American healthcare systems operate in different ways. The Canadian one is less inclined to use expensive, gimmicky solutions until it's shown that there's a clear benefit to using it. MRIs for example, while very effective in some kinds of diagnostics - tend to be overused in the US to diagnose conditions that are easily diagnosed using simpler and less expensive methods. As a result, the Canadian system has fewer of them per capita, but they tend to be more efficiently used.

Conversely, there are some treatments that have been proven in other countries and have been adopted quickly in Canada while they are still not available in the US. The Canadian systems is more conservative in general about new technology and techniques. Newer isn't always better. Cooler isn't always better.

The fact remains, Canadians live longer and by any reasonable measure of quality of health, have better health longer in their lives over a much larger proportion of the population than the American system, as flashy and gimmicky as it is, provides Americans.

[Jason Brown @ Aug 5th 2007 6:06AM]

all the hospitals in Edmonton are linked. depending what type of surgery is needed and the equipment used a patient could be transferred. Medical specialists also go where they are needed here.

[Rev. Otto @ Aug 5th 2007 7:27AM]

I for one welcome CEO Jameson, to the staff.

[johnzilla @ Aug 5th 2007 8:33AM]

It isn't a robot if someone else is controlling it.

[xguile @ Aug 5th 2007 9:39AM]

1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance.
2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.
3. A person who works mechanically without original thought, especially one who responds automatically to the commands of others.

[Adam K @ Aug 5th 2007 10:14AM]

Somewhere off in the future we'll have advanced robots like 2-1B from The Empire Strikes Back. I can't wait for that day. We'll need them because of all of the space battles.

[Evan @ Aug 5th 2007 11:32AM]

Funny, not one mention of the company (the only surgical robotic company) that actually does this: Intuitive Surgical.

[Aceball @ Aug 5th 2007 12:48PM]

I'm an anesthesiology resident at the University of Chicago, we've been using the Da Vinci system for robotic assisted surgery for 4 years now. They are now starting to do Cardiac Bypass surgery and Hysterectomies with this thing. Its really amazing that pts getting a robotic prostatectomy leave in 24-48hrs with minimal pain, as opposed to up to 7 days and extensive pain with the traditional open prostatectomy.

[Canman99 @ Aug 5th 2007 2:06PM]

Wow. That is brilliant. Who knows what other medical procedures could benefit from this?

[Reuben @ Aug 5th 2007 11:24PM]

Just about any laparoscopic procedure can be performed with a properly equipped Da Vinci system. While I was working in the University of North Carolina OR, I scrubbed in on a couple of hysterectomies, and a cholecystojejunostomy. The advantage of the Da Vinci is the additional degrees of freedom the robot hands have over traditional laparoscopic instruments.

[hothotdisco @ Aug 5th 2007 3:43PM]

Sweet, I was born in this hospital. Im not too sure if I would want to be operated on by a robot though.....I still prefer a human touch.

[Adam K @ Aug 6th 2007 12:32AM]

The robot is probably more accurate than the human so long as it's being supervised. And I'm sure it is. It's probably less likely to damage something.

[MattC @ Aug 6th 2007 5:49AM]

It's not a matter of the robot being supervised: it isn't automated in the traditional sense. The robot arms are controlled remotely, with opportunities for greater precision working at a higher scale/resolution. If I understand properly, it also has "fly-by-wire" type software that means that yes, it is safer than your average physician... at least in trained hands.

[Jeff Lewis @ Aug 6th 2007 1:22PM]

Regardless of whether the term 'robot' is applicable, I think it's conveying the wrong sense of what this is. This is really a remote system with assistive software - not an autonomous system that goes off and does surgery on its own. A doctor is actually doing the work - it's just that rather than handling a scalpel with his or her own hand, the doctor will operate controls that move a much smaller and precisely controlled cutting device remotely.