pav345678

No, we don't assume that its is better because it is robot. We assume it is better because it was specifically designed to give to a surgeon a better instrument. It allows more range of instruments movement and degree of freedom and eliminates issues with surgeon hands trembling.

Yes, there is no statistically significant evidence yet that it is better, but there is no statistical evidence that it is worse. I don't think it is beneficial to stop using this technology based on cost effectiveness.

I happened to had a tumor on my kidney 6 month ago, so I actually had to make a decision between regular laparoscopy and Da Vinci. Tge surgeon who did not have access to the robot system said that robot is just marketing BS and he would do a surgery just fine. However, because the tumor was on the back side of the kidney it would require rotating kidney out of the place and would be a bit challenging. But he was confident that it could be done

THe surgeon with robot said that tumor position is not a problem for a robot whatsoever. So I went with the robot.

So, back to OP, the robot is better because it allows to perform surgery in places where it is not possible to go with non robotic instruments.

I also have plenty of anecdata from people who had similar surgeries performed on them with different techiques. It terms of post op recovery da Vinci wins unanimously. I had surgery on Tuesday and was back to work next Monday

Actually, it is compelling. All things being equal you give an experienced surgeon an advanced tool and get 30% reduction in hospital stay along with less damage to your kidney function

From a patient point of view it is a big difference. Hospital stay is really expensive even if you have insurance. Hospitals charge like 10000$ per day and copayment foe hospital stay is usually hundreds of dollars.

Of course, it means that hospitals can process more patients and generate more profit, but it also reduces surgery wait times, which is critical for a patient with a tumor, because the longer your wait, the more likely for the tumor to spread

For the kidney surgery seems to be significantly better then non robotic

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9741158/

May be some years ago. Now Slovakia is also affected by a nearby war and packed with refugees from Ukraine.

Hi, I apologize if my comment is not relevant to the conversation, but this specific comment seems very useful to my personal situation and I desperately need some further insight on the matter.

I am an US expat living in a country with free universal healthcare. It is also affected by a war that started a year ago. I could not leave then because I had a life threatening health emergency and had to spend 2 month in a hospital. Luckily, it was finally resolved, but i need to stay on heavy meds to remain in remission.

And they just discovered that I have a tumor in my kidney that requires major surgery. To have surgery here is almost certain death from complications/infections/neglect (i've seen it happen)

So I have to go back to US.

My plan is to move back, buy a "cadillac" health plan on ACA market place. I understand that one can enroll after enrollment period if moving from overseas. Then try to get a treatment.

What is the best approach to get the treatment as fast as possible? Is concierge thing only way to go? I checked major cancer centers in an area where I plan to settle, they are all accepting new patients. Does it mean I can go directly to them and expect them to treat me right away?

Most important question. What if I denied insurance or it is delayed and I end up uninsured? Is there a way to get a treatment first and pay later/negotiate price, payment plan, etc

Any advice is appreciated

Thank you