Pros and Cons of Surgical Technology
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course
Professor’s Name
Date
Pros and Cons of Surgical Technology
In the recent past, the growth in technology has touched on almost every aspect of life, and the health sector is not an exception. The most notable impact of modernization on the health sector is improved surgical technology, making what seemed impossible earlier an easy activity. The invention of robotic surgical techniques is an unprecedented step in success attributable to the ever growing technology. Although some feel that robotic surgery needs more training on using the surgical tools and there is a risk of possible mechanical failure during the surgical process, it remains a preferred mode of operation because it is more precise, has significantly less scarring, earlier discharge from the hospital and less risk of infection and blood loss.
Implementation of surgical technology is associated with less risk of blood loss and infection. Compared to the non-robotic form of surgery. With proper surgical techniques, the surgeon only makes a small incision to the patients; thus, the amount of blood lost during the surgical process is minimized (Wang et al., 2018). Additionally, with the smaller incisions, the patient is likely to suffer fewer blood infections, so the mortality in hospitals due to sepsis cases is reduced significantly. Thus, surgical technology plays a vital role in reducing deaths resulting from surgical hemorrhage and sepsis.
Surgical technology makes the surgical process more precise when compared to the non-robotic form. The operation usually entails operating around vital organs such as the kidney, liver, pancreas, and some delicate nerves (Canetti et al., 2018). With the small operating machines used in robotic surgery, the surgical process can penetrate through the delicate tissues and remove the abnormality without affecting the surrounding tissues. The robotic instruments used in surgical technology are thus crucial in ensuring that the risk of damage to other organs is minimized.\
The surgical technique is essential as it ensures less scarring and earlier discharge from the hospitals. With the implementation of surgical technology, the incision made is smaller than the non-robotic forms (Peters et al., 2018). The smaller incisions are healing faster with; less scarring making the surgery more cosmetic because it does not leave large scars on the patient. Additionally, the smaller incision s ensures that the patient is discharged early for the hospital because they take less time to recover from the surgical; process.
Certainly, some feel that the surgical technology that surgical technology carries more risk as it is associated with a possible risk of mechanical failure during the surgical process, it remains a more preferred form of surgery. Failing to implement surgical technology due to the potential risk of mechanical failure is irrational. Every field is associated with unpredictable risks, so rather than forgoing all the benefits of surgical technology due to the fear of machine failure, it would be better if the machines are correctly checked before any surgical process. Additionally, surgical technology requires more technology as it is more modernized does not justify its failure of implementation (Abiri et al., 2018). Just like any other field, every worker should be conversant with using all the tools in his area of work, so it is irrational not to implement surgical technology because surgeons are not conversant with the tools
Although the surgical technology comes with some technology such as requirement so adequately trained personnel and a possible risk of failure, it is still the preferred to the other forms of technology because it is associated with earlier patient discharge, less blood loss, less scarring, and an increase in precision of the surgical process.
References
Abiri, A., Askari, S. J., Tao, A., Juo, Y. Y., Dai, Y., Pensa, J., … & Grundfest, W. S. (2018). Suture breakage warning system for robotic surgery. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 66(4), 1165-1171. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8458175
Canetti, R., Batailler, C., Bankhead, C., Neyret, P., Servien, E., & Lustig, S. (2018). Faster return to sport after robotic-assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative study. Archives of orthopedic and trauma surgery, 138(12), 1765-1771. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-018-3042-6
Peters, B. S., Armijo, P. R., Krause, C., Choudhury, S. A., & Oleynikov, D. (2018). Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surgical endoscopy, 32(4), 1636-1655. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-018-6079-2
Wang, S. E., Shyr, B. U., Chen, S. C., & Shyr, Y. M. (2018). Comparison between robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy with modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: A propensity score-matched study. Surgery, 164(6), 1162-1167. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039606018303751