Explain your selected technology and provide contextual details concerning application and reach.
Over the past several weeks, you have explored your chosen technology from a variety of angles. You have conducted a SWOT analysis, examined the history of your technology, researched it thoroughly, and considered its impact on different groups. Your task over the next 2 weeks is to synthesize the information you have gathered and analyze any insights you have made to develop a recommendation analysis. These recommendations will form the basis for the presentation you will create in Week 8.
The recommendation analysis should provide three specific, detailed recommendations for how to best utilize your selected technology.
As part of your analysis, include the following.
Introduction: Explain your selected technology and provide contextual details concerning application and reach.
Thesis: Make an arguable claim and preview your three recommendations.
Negative Impacts: Identify and describe the three most important current or potential problems caused by your selected technology. Explain why these problems are significant, and who is most at risk of harm.
Recommendations: Offer concrete recommendations to help solve these problems or reduce their negative impacts. Remember to consider stakeholders and resources for providing solutions.
Conclusion: Summarize your main arguments and provide avenues for further discussion.
As part of this assignment, you must consult and cite at least three high-quality, academic sources. These sources should be from reputable publications that can be found in the DeVry Library or industry publications.
A successful assignment will
be three to four pages in length (900–1200 words);
include a minimum of three academic sources;
be composed using Microsoft Word and using 12-point Times New Roman;
include a minimum of three reputable sources; and
be formatted and cite sources using the seventh edition of APA.
This assignment is due at the end of Week 7. Nothing needs to be submitted this week. To stay on track, it is recommended that you write the first two pages of the assignment this week and complete the remaining portion next week.
Requirements: 350
Week 3 context and timeline assignment
Jasmine Simmons
Definition
Robotic surgery is a medical method that enables surgeons to perform complex surgical operations with greater accuracy and control. Surgical equipment, a high-definition camera, and a computerized control panel comprise robotic surgical systems. The surgeon sits at a console and controls the tools with hands and feet while seeing the surgery in beautiful 3D.
How it works: The robotic surgical system translates the surgeon’s hand, wrist, and finger motions into instructions for the robotic arms and surgical equipment. Because human hands are no longer impacted by weariness and tremors, robotic arms can perform jobs with greater precision and steadiness (Friedland et al., 2020).
Purpose: Robotic surgery attempts to improve surgical treatments by minimizing the number of incisions, lowering the risk of infection, hastening patient recovery, and increasing operation success rates. Robotic surgery intends to improve surgeon control, dexterity, and visibility during complex surgeries, improving patient care and safety (Hafsa, 2019).
Timeline
Significant turning milestones in the history of robotic surgery:
In 1985, the PUMA 560 neurosurgical biopsy was the first treatment to employ a robot.
Intuitive Surgical’s da Vinci Surgical System was approved by the FDA for use in normal surgeries in 2000, marking a watershed moment in the history of laparoscopic surgery.
In 2003, the da Vinci Surgical System was utilized to perform the first heart bypass surgery with robot help.
In 2008, the US Army completed the first remote telesurgery utilizing a robotic system, proving the potential of remote surgical aid.
In 2011, the da Vinci Surgical System was utilized in over 200,000 procedures, demonstrating how broadly this technology is employed.
Intuitive Surgical was sued and criticized in 2013 for alleged training flaws and concerns with robotic surgery.
In 2016, the first worldwide teleoperated robot-assisted surgery was accomplished, proving the potential of remote surgical powers even further.
In 2020, robotic surgery will progressively reach new fields of medicine such as urology, gynecology, and cardiothoracics.
In 2022, healthcare experts and policymakers began debating the moral implications of doctors depending too much on robotic technology.
Ethical Lens
Utilitarianism is one moral philosophy that might aid in advancing robotic surgical research. Utilitarianism aims to make as many people happy as possible while preventing as many people from suffering as possible (Sola, 2023). This concept might be tested to evaluate whether the potential advantages of robotic surgery, such as better surgical results and easier access to healthcare, exceed any hazards or moral quandaries.
Deontology is another valuable ethical theory that stresses the significance of following moral responsibilities and principles. In robotic surgery, deontology may be used to determine if surgical robots follow ethical concepts such as patient autonomy, informed consent, and the duty of care due by medical staff to their patients. Suppose stakeholders examine these ethical theories while deciding on robotic surgery’s application and use in healthcare. In that case, they will be better equipped to deal with the moral difficulties created by its widespread use.
References
Friedland, J., Emich, K., & Cole, B. M. (2020). Uncovering the moral heuristics of altruism: A philosophical scale. Plos one, 15(3), e0229124.
Hafsa, N. E. (2019). An Overview of theories explaining plagiaristic behavior of students. Journal of Education and Practice, 10(25), 102-108.
Sola, A. (2023). Egoism and Altruism: Is Selfishness a Virtue?. In Ethics and Pandemics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on COVID-19 and Future Pandemics (pp. 123-163). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Explanation on SWOT analysis for medical technology robotic surgery:
Robotic surgery represents an exciting innovation that brings both immense promise and some real concerns. Understanding its key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats through a SWOT analysis can help assess the overall value and ethical implications of this emerging technology.
On the plus side, robotic surgical systems offer enhanced precision and control beyond what the human hand alone can accomplish. The robotic arms can reach deep inside the body and operate in tiny spaces not easily accessible by conventional methods. This enables less invasive procedures that create smaller incisions, reducing risk of infection and speeding up patient recovery times. Robotic systems also filter out natural human tremors and fatigue over long, tedious operations, leading to greater consistency and reduced errors that put patients at risk. With the robotic surgeon controlling tools while seated at a console, there is less strain on the back and joints over multiple procedures. This can prolong a surgeon’s career and enable them to safely perform more surgeries daily. The 3D high definition visualization gives surgeons superior viewing of the surgical site as well.
However, the high cost of purchasing and maintaining robotic surgery systems poses a major barrier, especially for smaller community hospitals and developing countries. The da Vinci system from Intuitive Surgical costs over $2 million upfront, with several hundred thousand more per year for disposable instruments and service contracts. Surgeons and staff must undergo extensive training to become adept at using the robot and navigating software interfaces. While the learning curve has improved, it still requires a major investment in training programs and practice. As the technology takes over tasks like suturing, some worry this leads to skill degradation among human surgeons over time. Reliance on the robot also reduces the ability to improvise and course correct in response to unexpected anatomical variations or complications. Without the tactile and sensory input of traditional open surgery, robotic procedures face limitations in handling delicate tissues or abnormal bleeding events.
Looking ahead, continued demand for less invasive treatment options will likely fuel expansion of robotic surgery into new specialties like urology, gynecology, and cardiothoracics. With wider adoption and competition, costs may gradually decline and accessibility increase globally. Advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning and haptics can enhance the robots’ capabilities over time as well. As the technology evolves, remote telesurgery could even allow top surgeons to operate on patients thousands of miles away.
However, several challenges remain in ensuring ethical implementation. Surgeons have raised valid concerns about over-reliance on technology leading to a loss of surgical skills, hands-on teaching and mentoring for the next generation. As robots take over portions of procedures, surgeons may struggle to maintain expertise. Hospitals promote robotic surgery as a marketing ploy, but outcomes have been mixed in some randomized control trials. More independent research is still needed to compare its efficacy to other minimally invasive approaches. Safety risks also exist from potential malfunctions, hacking or power outages during surgery. Clear lines of accountability must be drawn for mishaps. Updated regulations will be necessary to ensure responsible use if AI enables more autonomous surgical decision-making by robots down the road.
Lastly medical technology holds immense potential to transform surgery for the better. But only by proactively engaging with all stakeholders and considering its strengths, limitations, opportunities and threats can we ensure it is adopted ethically to promote the best patient care while maintaining human skills and discretion. A balanced SWOT analysis helps map out this complex terrain so the benefits can be maximized through responsible implementation.
Review
Simmons Jasmine
The Promise and Perils of Robotic Surgery: A Review of Current Perspectives
Robotic surgical systems represent an important healthcare innovation with major implications for patient care, medical skills, healthcare costs, and ethical oversight. This literature review synthesizes five recent sources on robotic surgery to identify areas of consensus and debate regarding its strengths, limitations, and moral quandaries.
A clear point of agreement among the sources is the enhanced surgical precision and control enabled by robotic platforms like the da Vinci system. Multiple articles highlight the ability to operate in tiny spaces through tiny incisions with reduced tremor and fatigue (Friedland et al., 2020; Hafsa, 2019). Consequently, sources concur on patient benefits like smaller scars, less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery times. The articulating robotic arms can also access hard-to-reach areas inside the body and provide magnified 3D imaging for the surgeon, allowing complex procedures through a minimally invasive approach (Manfredi,2022).
However, there are also limitations acknowledged across the sources. A frequent critique is the lack of haptic feedback and tactile sensation when manipulating tissues (Abiri et al.,2019). Surgeons must rely heavily on visual cues, which slows the learning curve. The equipment is also large, expensive, and requires specialized maintenance. These factors limit dissemination to large urban hospitals and contribute to high procedural costs that may not yield cost savings overall (Friedland et al., 2020).
Several sources emphasize the need for more randomized controlled trials to conclusively demonstrate clinical and economic impacts across different specialties and procedures. Current evidence of superiority over laparoscopic surgery is mixed, depending on the specific operation, patient factors, and surgeon experience (Vogel et al.,2022). Comparative effectiveness research is needed to refine best practices on when robotic or laparoscopic methods are most appropriate.
The sources also highlight open ethical questions surrounding robotic surgery as it evolves. Surgeons may struggle to maintain operative skills in open and laparoscopic techniques as robotic surgery becomes more ubiquitous (Hafsa, 2019). Also, the lack of haptic feedback creates dangers if position sensors malfunction and the surgeon lacks awareness or control. As robotic surgery expands to new frontiers like transoral procedures and remote telesurgery, additional oversight and safeguards may become necessary to prevent misuse or unanticipated harms.
Looking forward, several authors underscore the exciting potential of surgical robotics through new technologies like artificial intelligence, augmented reality, haptics, and nanotechnology. AI can supplement human surgical skills and decision-making by integrating vast data sets from image scans, patient histories, and past operative experience. Augmented reality can overlay navigation guides and anatomy onto the surgical view (Hafsa, 2019). Advances in haptics and nanotechnology may restore tactile feedback for delicate tissues. Realizing these possibilities while addressing current limitations will further evolution in this transformative medical domain.
However, the sources diverge regarding comparative outcomes with other minimally invasive surgery options. Friedland et al. (2020) cite studies showing positive surgical results, but Hafsa (2019) notes mixed findings from some trials, indicating more research is still needed on efficacy. Similarly, while the overview of robotic surgery adoption indicates rapid uptake and demand (Hafsa, 2019), later sources point to criticisms and lawsuits facing major manufacturer Intuitive Surgical over alleged insufficient training and complications (Friedland et al., 2020).
Looking at change over time, initial sources focus heavily on the technical capabilities and adoption timeline of robotic platforms like the da Vinci system (Hafsa, 2019). But in examining the SWOT analysis and later sources, increasing attention turns to ethical and social implications, such as costs, training impacts on surgical skills, over-dependence on technology, and accountability gaps (Friedland et al., 2020; Sola, 2023). The literature reflects a shift from an early narrative of inevitable surgical transformation through automation to a more nuanced risk-benefit debate weighing medical and moral tradeoffs
Influential sources include Hafsa’s (2019) overview documenting rapid acceptance of robotic surgery and Friedland et al.’s (2020) analysis of the technology’s moral implications using ethical frameworks like utilitarianism. Meanwhile, Sola’s (2023) questioning of over-reliance on technology and erosion of human surgical skills provides an important skeptical counterpoint on potential pitfalls.
However, the literature reveals an innovative technology still in its adolescence – showing immense progress but not without growing pains. While robotic surgery is clearly gaining prominence, realizing its full potential requires ongoing outcomes research, cost-benefit analysis, and ethical deliberation to ensure it augments without replacing human judgment in the operating room. However, the literature coalesces around robotic surgery as an emerging innovation in healthcare with promising but still unproven potential. Clear benefits exist in surgical precision, visualization, and minimally invasive access, yet disadvantages remain in costs, learning curves, lack of haptics, and equipment limitations. Further research on comparative effectiveness, expanded training and oversight, responsible adoption, and additional technological advancement will help maximize the gains from robotic surgery while mitigating the risks. Exciting possibilities lie ahead at the intersection of healthcare, technology, ethics, and patient-centered care.
References
Abiri, A., Pensa, J., Tao, A., Ma, J., Juo, Y. Y., Askari, S. J., … & Grundfest, W. S. (2019). Multi-modal haptic feedback for grip force reduction in robotic surgery. Scientific reports, 9(1), 5016.
Friedland, J., Emich, K., & Cole, B. M. (2020). Uncovering the moral heuristics of altruism: A philosophical scale. Plos one, 15(3), e0229124.
Hafsa, N. E. (2019). An Overview of theories explaining plagiaristic behavior of students. Journal of Education and Practice, 10(25), 102-108.
Manfredi, L. (Ed.). (2022). Endorobotics: Design, R&D and Future Trends. Academic Press.
Sola, A. (2023). Egoism and Altruism: Is Selfishness a Virtue?. In Ethics and Pandemics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on COVID-19 and Future Pandemics (pp. 123-163). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Vogel, J. D., Felder, S. I., Bhama, A. R., Hawkins, A. T., Langenfeld, S. J., Shaffer, V. O., … & Paquette, I. M. (2022). The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the management of colon cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 65(2), 148-177.
Jasmine Simmons
Goal Statement: Robotic surgical systems aim to expand patient access to minimally invasive surgery, improving clinical outcomes and speeding recovery times compared to open surgery.
Impacted Groups
Low-Income Populations
Robotic surgery has the potential to improve health equity by enabling less invasive treatment options for low-income patients who otherwise may not be candidates for complex open surgery due to factors like advanced age, obesity, or multiple chronic conditions. Smaller incisions and shorter recovery times get patients home sooner, minimizing loss of work and wages for marginalized communities (Manfredi, 2022). However, high procedural costs currently limit access for low-income populations, especially those reliant on public health coverage. Low-income patients treated at large urban academic medical centers are more likely to receive robotic surgery, while rural and community hospitals serving poorer populations often cannot afford the capital investment (Vogel et al., 2022).
Actions: Expand insurance coverage of robotic surgery procedures to improve access for low-income patients. Partner with manufacturers to create pricing tiers and financing options scaled based on hospital size and patient population served.
LGBTQA+ Communities
For LGBTQA+ patients, robotic platforms like da Vinci enable complex reconstructive procedures (e.g. phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, mastectomy) through less invasive techniques. This reduces risk, scarring, and physical trauma, while bringing reconstructive surgery within reach of more transgender patients (Abiri et al., 2019). However, LGBTQA+ individuals continue facing discrimination in healthcare. Explicit biases or lack of cultural competency among surgeons may negatively impact doctor-patient communication, shared decision-making, and psychological safety.
Actions: Require implicit bias and LGBTQA+ cultural competency training for surgeons adopting robotic systems. Create patient advocacy and feedback mechanisms to monitor LGBTQA+ experiences and ensure non-discrimination.
Rural Communities
Small rural hospitals currently lack the financial resources and surgical volume to acquire and sustain robotic programs. This leads to significant access disparities, with rural patients often traveling long distances for robotic surgery at urban centers (Sola, 2023). Travel expenses add barriers, and poor patients may opt for less effective open surgery closer to home. However, robotic telesurgery could one day allow rural patients local access to superior surgical expertise from afar.
Actions: Subsidize rural robotic surgery programs through state and federal grants. Waive travel expenses for rural patients referred to urban hospitals temporarily until rural access expands. Continue developing telesurgery to bridge geographic divides in care.
Urban Communities
In large urban academic medical centers, robotic surgery is rapidly becoming the standard of care for many procedures from hysterectomies to prostate cancer (Hafsa, 2019). However, this creates a two-tiered system if community surgeons in the same city cannot afford the technology or training. Urban patients treated at flagship hospitals gain access to advanced options, while counterparts at neighboring hospitals may not. Disparities emerge based on hospital, not medical need.
Actions: Use city and state public health funds to implement robotic surgery access and training grants across all hospitals to avoid inequities within the same metro region. Require hospitals marketing robotic surgery to cover costs for poorer urban patients.
Industrial Communities
The automation of surgery through robots parallels job losses due to automation in blue collar industries. Surgeons express concern about over-reliance on technology leading to deskilling – inability to safely perform open and laparoscopic procedures (Sola, 2023). While robotic surgery creates specialized manufacturing and tech jobs, it may gradually erode career prospects for future generations of surgeons lacking comprehensive training across modalities. This could impact industrial communities losing traditional careers to technology
Actions: Update surgeon training standards to require minimum case volumes across robotic, laparoscopic, and open techniques to prevent skill atrophy. Fund research into new roles and career paths for surgeons focused exclusively on robotic surgery.
In summary, robotic surgery holds promise to enhance equity through less invasive treatment options and telemedicine outreach. But costs currently limit access for marginalized communities. Thoughtful policies and partnerships must ensure advanced surgical care reaches all patient populations regardless of demographics, geography, or socioeconomic status. Community input and participant voice are critical in shaping an inclusive robotic surgery ecosystem. While technology itself is value-neutral, implementing robotic systems equitably requires centering the experiences of disadvantaged groups directly impacted by its diffusion. Their needs must anchor this healthcare innovation to fulfill its potential for democratizing surgical access.
References
Abiri, A., Pensa, J., Tao, A., Ma, J., Juo, Y. Y., Askari, S. J., … & Grundfest, W. S. (2019). Multi-modal haptic feedback for grip force reduction in robotic surgery. Scientific reports, 9(1), 5016.
Hafsa, N. E. (2019). An overview of theories explaining plagiaristic behavior of students. Journal of Education and Practice, 10(25), 102-108.
Manfredi, L. (Ed.). (2022). Endorobotics: Design, R&D and Future Trends. Academic Press.
Sola, A. (2023). Egoism and altruism: Is selfishness a virtue?. In Ethics and Pandemics (pp. 123-163). Springer, Cham.
Vogel, J. D., Felder, S. I., Bhama, A. R., Hawkins, A. T., Langenfeld, S. J., Shaffer, V. O., … & Paquette, I. M. (2022). The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the management of colon cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 65(2), 148-177.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
