Sara Gračić
PhD student of business informatics, Faculty of Economics, Segedinski put 9-11, 24000 Subotica, Serbia
Zoran Ćirić
Faculty of Economics, Segedinski put 9-11, 24000 Subotica, Serbia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31410/EMAN.2018.909
​​
2nd International Scientific Conference – EMAN 2018 – Economics and Management: How to Cope With Disrupted Times, Ljubljana – Slovenia, March 22, 2018, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS published by: Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Management Koper, Slovenia; Doba Business School – Maribor, Slovenia; Integrated Business Faculty –  Skopje, Macedonia; Faculty of Management – Zajecar, Serbia, ISBN 978-86-80194-11-0


Abstract​

In 2001 first transatlantic robotic surgery on a human was successfully conducted. Since, developed countries have started implementing robotic surgical systems, providing patient/doctor benefits, but with significant costs, which focuses our research on possibility of implementing these systems in developing countries as well. Robotic surgeons help perform complex procedures with greater accuracy, flexibility and control, compared with conventional techniques. They are correlated with minimally invasive surgery due to small incisions, but can sometimes be used in open (invasive) procedures. System consists of 3 units: slave, with 3 to 4 robotic arms for surgical instruments and camera; master console, where surgeon is located and manages the arms by movement and voice and monitoring unit. Surgical robots cover diverse medical areas: general surgery, urology, gynaecology and have been in focus of studies that investigated various metrics, of which most important success and complication rates. Some measured system set-up, console and procedure time. Others calculated material and personnel costs for different procedures. A study compared prices and technical characteristics of 2 commercially available robots, da Vinci and Radius. Benefits of robotic surgery: patients have small incisions, some not even visible, postoperative recovery is faster, there is less blood loss and element of aesthetics. Doctors can easily reach different parts of the body, having a feeling they are “inside a patient”, the system is ergonomically suited to support their body and learning curve is fast. However, robot is not the best alternative for gynaecological procedures – complication rate is slightly higher than with laparoscopy and it costs a lot more. Surgical robot costs a few million dollars, it has to be maintained every year, generating expenditure of hundred thousand dollars, each instrument must be changed after 10 uses, if it lasts that long, meaning another few hundred dollars per every changed instrument. Doctors have to be trained on simulators to use these systems, which generates expenditures of going to education centres. There are doctors who are refusing these technologies as well as patients. The purpose of conducting this research is to answer the main question: can developing countries implement this technology, bearing in mind patient/doctor benefits with high expenditures? After analysing benefits, risks and costs through relevant papers from scientific databases and noticing resource reallocations were made in Serbian budget, it is concluded that financial resources could be obtained for implementing this system. However, potential threat lies within rejection of new technology by patients and possibly doctors. Therefore, system implementation should be shaped in the following way: educate citizens and doctors via social media campaigns first and then conduct acquisition of the robot parallel with medical staff training. Only then implementing this expensive robot can be recommended.
​​

Key words

surgical robots, costs, benefits, sustainability, process

References

  1. All About Robotic Surgery. Retrieved November 05, 2017, from https://allaboutroboticsurgery.com/surgicalrobots.html,
  2.  “Operation Lindberg”. A World First in Telesurgery: The Surgical Act Crosses the Atlantic. (September 19, 2001) Press Conference
  3. Marescaux J., Leroy J., Rubino F., Smith M., Vix M., Simone M., Mutter D. (2002) Transcontinental Robot-Assisted Remote Telesurgery: Feasibility and Potential Applications. Annals of Surgery, 235 (4), 487-492
  4. Sobol J. (n.d.) Robotic surgery. Retrieved April 04, 2018, from https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007339.htm
  5. Robotic surgery. (2018, February 10). Retrieved April 04, 2018, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/robotic-surgery/about/pac-20394974
  6. Singh K. (2010) Robotics in Surgery. Seminar Report. Cochin University Of Science And Technology
  7. Gračić S. (2016) Medicina u pokretu – primena robotskih hirurških sistema, „džepnih“ ultrazvučnih uređaja, „pametnih“ telefona, transportnih sistema i drugih dostignuća iz oblasti telemedicine zasnovanih na bežičnim tehnologijama i biometrici u Srbiji i inostranstvu. Unpublished Master Thesis. University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Economics.
  8. Bodner J., Augustina F., Wykypiela H., Fisha J., Muehlmanna G., Wetscherb G., Schmid T. (2005) The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal. Swiss Medical Weekly, 135, 674-678
  9. Kim W., Ham W., Jeong W., Song H., Rha K., Choi Y. (2009) Failure and Malfunction of da Vinci Surgical Systems During Various Robotic Surgeries: Experience From Six Departments at a Single Institute. Urology, 74, (6), 1234-1237
  10. Chen C., Ou Y., Yang C., Chiu K., Wang S., Su C., Ho H., Cheng C., Chen C., Lee J., Chen W. (2012) Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system in urology. International Journal of Urology, 19, 736-740
  11. Beck M. (2014) Robotic Surgery Brings Higher Costs, More Complications, Study Shows. Health Journal. Wall Street Journal.
  12. Ishikawa N., Watanabe G., Inaki N., Moriyama H., Shimada M., Kawaguchi M. (2012) The da Vinci Surgical System versus the Radius Surgical System. Surgical Science, 3,358-361
  13. BenMessaoud C., Kharrazi H., MacDorman K.F. (2011) Facilitators and Barriers to Adopting Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Contextualizing the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. PLoS ONE, 6, (1), e16395. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016395
  14. Haggag, A.A. (2006) Robotic surgery: When technology meets surgical precision. Internet Journal of Health, 5, (1), 3.
  15. Tabor W. (2007) On the cutting edge of robotic surgery. Nursing 37, (2), 48–50.
  16. Furukawa T., Morikawa Y., Ozawa S., Wakabayashi G., Kitajima M. (2001) The revolution of computer-aided surgery: The dawn of robotic surgery. Minimal Invasive Theraphy & Allied Technology, 10(6), 283–288.
  17. Palep J.H. (2009) Robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 5, (1), 1-7
  18. Marescaux J., Rubino F. (2005) Robotic surgery: Potentials, barriers, and limitations. European Surgery, 37, (5), 279–283.
  19. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg, 205-213.
  20. Zakon o budžetu 2017.
  21. Zakon o budžetu 2018.
  22. Danas: Poreska uprava ne objavljuje listu poreskih dužnika. (2018, January 29). Retrieved April 04, 2018, from https://rs.n1info.com/a360292/Biznis/Danas-Poreska-uprava-ne-objavljuje-listu-poreskih-duznika-godinu-i-po-dana.html
  23. Spiskovi najvećih dužnika. (n.d.) Retrieved April 05, 2018, from https://www.poreskauprava.gov.rs/sr/biro-za-informisanje/novosti/4672/spiskovi-najvecih-duznika-.html

Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans – UdEkoM Balkan
179 Ustanicka St, 11000 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia