FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2109792029> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2109792029 endingPage "1" @default.
• W2109792029 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2109792029 abstract "As surgeons, we need to understand the indications of “robot” as a new tool in the Indian context. It is quite evident that the surgical robotic platform is a tool, and it cannot replace good surgical technique. It is over a decade since the robot was approved for use by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration. The indications and application for robotic surgery are ever expanding since then. In India, we are at crossroads. Installations of robots have increased fourfold in the past 5 years. Jain and Gautam in their article in the current issue have put forth a very interesting fact.[1] They note that in the year 2012 and 2013 the number of installations that have been commissioned in India increased by over 40% as against the global average of 21%. This may indicate the fact that probably we have too fewer installations than we need. Secondly, the authors note that the indications for robotic surgery differ in the west as compared to India. Gynaecologist is the most frequent users of the robot as compared to Urologist elsewhere in the world. In India, the most frequent user of the robotic platform is the Urologist. Does it mean the other specialties are underutilising this technology or does it mean the medical fraternity as such is not convinced about it? Given this background, the aim of this issue is to bring out evidence-based facts from robotic surgeons in India. We have focused on application of robot as a tool for various specialties and subspecialties. The issue intends to bring out the indications, pros and cons of use of robot in the respective fields. The authors of each invited review article have focused on the contemporary literature. Sood and Bhandari have touched on an important and interesting topic of robotic training.[2] A healthy academically oriented debate is the crux of a good scientific society. Two giants in the field have debated if we in India are ready for the robotic platform.[34] We have tried to make the issue all-encompassing by including a wide spectrum of experts in the field ranging from gynaecology, thoracic surgery, paediatric surgery and uro-gynaecology. In addition, we have also included few original articles, case reports and personal viewpoints pertinent to robotic surgery. A new invention or development is first greeted with disbelief, followed by criticism and finally acceptance. The same holds true for the robotic platform. The “well-known” critique of robotic surgery is the cost. The increasing cost of healthcare has been a matter of concern in the US as well as elsewhere around the globe. This has led to questions being posed about the utility of the robot, particularly in a cost conscious society such as India. The second critique is the lack of evidence-based data for procedures performed robotically in comparison to laparoscopy or open approach. Both these critique was evident during the early developmental days of endourology as well. The “value” of any new addition to the surgical armamentarium should be recognised before setting it up on a pedestal or relegating it to the dustbin. The same holds true for robotics as a new technology. The jury is still out! As Alexander Pope, the famous English poet once said “Be not the first by whom the new is tried, nor yet the last to lay the old aside.”" @default.
• W2109792029 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2109792029 creator A5076720717 @default.
• W2109792029 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2109792029 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2109792029 title "Is the Indian surgical arena ready for the robotic platform?" @default.
• W2109792029 cites W1969320412 @default.
• W2109792029 cites W1989705928 @default.
• W2109792029 cites W2037139208 @default.
• W2109792029 cites W2079157263 @default.
• W2109792029 doi "https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.147648" @default.
• W2109792029 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4290107" @default.
• W2109792029 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25598590" @default.
• W2109792029 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2109792029 type Work @default.
• W2109792029 sameAs 2109792029 @default.
• W2109792029 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2109792029 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2109792029 hasAuthorship W2109792029A5076720717 @default.
• W2109792029 hasBestOaLocation W21097920291 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C103203806 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C2777239462 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C3017684034 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C3018890749 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C3019611579 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConcept C90509273 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C103203806 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C141071460 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C154945302 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C166957645 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C17744445 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C199539241 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C205649164 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C2777239462 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C2779343474 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C3017684034 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C3018890749 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C3019611579 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C41008148 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C545542383 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C71924100 @default.
• W2109792029 hasConceptScore W2109792029C90509273 @default.
• W2109792029 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2109792029 hasLocation W21097920291 @default.
• W2109792029 hasLocation W21097920292 @default.
• W2109792029 hasLocation W21097920293 @default.
• W2109792029 hasLocation W21097920294 @default.
• W2109792029 hasLocation W21097920295 @default.
• W2109792029 hasOpenAccess W2109792029 @default.
• W2109792029 hasPrimaryLocation W21097920291 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W2014891814 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W2435945700 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W2944410847 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W3039287786 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W3094893006 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W3195029807 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W4214635504 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W4243855512 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W4319461777 @default.
• W2109792029 hasRelatedWork W2591368464 @default.
• W2109792029 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W2109792029 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2109792029 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2109792029 magId "2109792029" @default.
• W2109792029 workType "article" @default.