icefire555 t1_ir2v6v3 wrote
"human operating on human is easier than human operating on computer which is then operating on a human" fixed it for you.
Unless the computer is able to add intelligence to the operation as well as make things easier to overcome the need to operate in a different way that the doc didn't learn in school. It likely won't take off.
But computers can and will be better. They just need the right engineers.
iemailrobi t1_ir3qeb2 wrote
No doubt. As the inventor of the TrackX technology, I couldn’t agree with you more that to be effective the robot has to either add functionality that the human doesn’t have (tremor dampening as the Da Vinci does, or simultaneous multi-planer viewing as with TrackX) or take difficult tasks and make them simpler or quicker. Ideally it does all 3. Design is critical. As a rule, less is more and simplicity and resisting adding functionality make a better device. And making people acquire new skills rather than seamlessly merging into their historic workflow is a massive headwind to adoption. Totally agree that we can solve problems when the right engineer appreciates the problem and incorporates these rules of adoption.
Tef-al t1_ir72kez wrote
The Manor problem isn't learning its speed
The robots are precise and delicate but they are very slow compared to a human.
Longer procedure times lead to worse outcomes.
Being medically ventilated and induced coma etc is really really bad for you
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments