Talk:da Vinci Surgical System

Overview

In the overview, the surgical arms are described as being multifunction and including scalpel, bovie, unipolar, and "hi" functionality. I'm not sure what these last two terms mean, and no explanation or reference is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.96.46 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

There is no criticism of robotic surgery or the da Vinci Surgical System listed here, so the article read like a commercial or advertisement. Criticism should be added to make the article more encyclopaedic and because criticism of these systems exists. One possible reference: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brobdignagian (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to address this.Ekem (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's better, but it still reads like an ad. The important point is that there are no randomized studies, or even observational studies, to show that long-term outcomes are any better. JAMA 302:1557, NEJM 363:701. -- Nbauman (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, this criticism paragraph appears out of date and biased in and of itself, as it states as facts things like "it costs more" and the like, which seem to be contradicted by a simple google search. I would suggest a rewrite. GormtheDBA (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, many countries have state-run hospitals and free health care and consider this a public service (thus, making the "cost-effective" part irrelevant, as it's not intended to make a profit or even be self sustainable), so maybe it should be explained that this argument only concerns countries with healthcare systemas like the US. Chalito (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the criticism and the pediatric use of robotic technology sections should be removed from this article. The first because it is not criticism of the da Vinci system but of robotic surgery which has a page of its own. This page can refer to the robotic surgery one for the advantages and disadvantages. The second section should be removed because there are no citations and it is not clear how it relates to the article subject. 131.159.61.107 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree that it is important to have a criticism section here, if only because the system IS expensive. That it is bought by governments in some places doesn't make it less expensive or more cost effective, it just changes who bears the costs. BakerStMD T|C 22:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The last paragraph, about "social analysis", sounds remarkably like the person in question has no idea how this machine is operated, or, indeed, how any computer is operated. The da Vinci machine does not magically perform the surgery while a surgeon watches from a nearby armchair; they still need to know where to go and what to do, and they still need to actually do it. I see no reason for this person's 'criticisms' to be taken seriously enough that it merits its own paragraph on a wikipedia page. 129.115.3.59 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I skimmed the article in question and actually it is relevant. However I think there is a strong counter arugment that the "medialization" of surgeons standardizes care and saves lives, which everyone values more than surgeon creativity. BakerStMD T|C 22:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Title

I noticed that on the article the title's d in Da is lowercase is it suposed to be like that? Andrewcat58 (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because it's named after Leonardo da Vinci. He didn't have a "last name" in the way last names are thought of today; rather, it literally means "of Vinci". Leonardo from the village of Vinci. DS (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about wording: system's weight

What does 'the surgeon must first use the system's weight to judge how hard it should work' mean? I asked someone who is familiar with the da Vinci system and he also didn't know what it might mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRJF (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me, I'll take it out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

They're probably referring to the lack of tactile feedback from the system to the surgeon interface in the current da Vincis. I've heard that inTuitive (or whatever the company that makes it is called) is work on haptic feedback for future versions. BakerStMD T|C 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

History

Would be useful to have a history section CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability

I just checked a couple of sentences and discovered that neither one was supported by the cited ref. There was even a made up quote. Probably the whole article should be checked. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Da Vinci Surgical System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116100318/http://intuitivesurgical.com/specialties/regulatory-clearance.html to http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/specialties/regulatory-clearance.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture

I was thinking about adding a in popular culture section in to this article in regards to the they did surgery on a grape meme, which is a meme of this surgical systems doing surgery on grape (original video). I am asking before I do it because I'm not 100% sure this belongs here. So, does it? This could also be in a different section as the point of the video was to show how precise this system is, but it recently became a meme. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 04:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Due to recent page view increase, vandalism regarding this (meaning people come to this page expecting to see information about this), I will proceed with the edit, please revert my edit and ping me here if you want to contest my decision. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Title

Just a heads up, I added {{Lowercase title}} to the page to make the first letter of the title lowercase as it should be. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 04:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

there is a lack of studies that indicate long-term results are superior to results following laparoscopic surgery.[7] dont know it is true or not now

it clams that it has more than 24,000 peer-reviewed publications now

https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/healthcare-professionals/surgeons

https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/about-us/company/clinical-evidence

Sheepdolly1 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)