The Role of Humans in Surgery Automation
Tóm tắt
Innovation in healthcare promises unparalleled potential in optimizing the production, distribution, and use of the health workforce and infrastructure, allocating system resources more efficiently, and streamline care pathways and supply chains. A recent innovation contributing to this is robot-assisted surgeries (RAS). RAS causes less damage to the patient's body, less pain and discomfort, shorter hospital stays, quicker recovery times, smaller scars, and less risk of complications. However, introducing a robot in traditional surgeries is not straightforward and brings about new risks that conventional medical instruments did not pose before. For instance, since robots are sophisticated machines capable of acting autonomously, the surgical procedure's outcome is no longer limited to the surgeon but may also extend to the robot manufacturer and the hospital. This article explores the influence of automation on stakeholder responsibility in surgery robotization. To this end, we map how the role of different stakeholders in highly autonomous robotic surgeries is transforming, explore some of the challenges that robot manufacturers and hospital management will increasingly face as surgical procedures become more and more automated, and bring forward potential solutions to ascertain clarity in the role of stakeholders before, during, and after robot-enabled surgeries (i.e. a Robot Impact Assessment (ROBIA), a Robo-Terms framework inspired by the international trade system 'Incoterms', and a standardized adverse event reporting mechanism). In particular, we argue that with progressive robot autonomy, performance, oversight, and support will increasingly be shared between the human surgeon, the support staff, and the robot (and, by extent, the robot manufacturer), blurring the lines of who is responsible if something goes wrong. Understanding the exact role of humans in highly autonomous robotic surgeries is essential to map liability and bring certainty concerning the ascription of responsibility. We conclude that the full benefits the use of robotic innovations and solutions in surgery could bring to healthcare providers and receivers cannot be realized until there is more clarity on the division of responsibilities channeling robot autonomy and human performance, support, and oversight; a transformation on the education and training of medical staff, and betterment on the complex interplay between manufacturers, healthcare providers, and patients.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Leveson N, Kalbarczyk Z, Iyer RK (2016) Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS ONE 11(4):e0151470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151470
Amato F, López A, Peña-Méndez E, Vaňhara P, Hampl A, Havel J (2013) Artificial neural networks in medical diagnosis. J Appl Biomed 11(2):47–58
Amodei D, Olah C, Steinhardt J, Christiano P, Schulman J, Mané D (2016) Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565
Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke DA, Rastinehad A, Vanderbrink BA, Richstone L, Lee BR (2008) Device failures and patient injuries associated with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a review of the FDA database. J Urol 179(4S):344–344
Barach P, Small SD (2000) Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ 320(7237):759–763
Billings CE (1998) Some hopes and concerns regarding medical event-reporting systems: lessons from the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System. Arch Pathol Lab Med 122(3):214
Boyraz P, Dobrev I, Fischer G, Popovic MB (2019) Robotic surgery. In: Popovic MB (ed) Biomechatronics. Academic, London, pp 431–450
Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103
Bryson JJ, Diamantis ME, Grant TD (2017) Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artif Intell Law 25(3):273–291
Calo R (2014) The need to be open: U.S. laws are killing the future of robotics. Mashable. https://mashable.com/2014/01/01/us-law-robotics-future/?europe=true. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
Chang YC, Miles I, Hung SC (2014) Introduction to special issue: managing technology-service convergence in Service Economy 3.0. Technovation 34(9):499–504
Chinzei K (2019) Safety of surgical robots and IEC 80601-2-77: the first international standard for surgical robots. Acta Polytech Hung 16(8):171–184
CoE, Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning ... (n.d.). Rule 5-6, 9. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1993L0042:20071011:en:PDF
Cooper MA, Ibrahim A, Lyu H, Makary MA (2015) Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual 37(2):133–138
Courdier S, Garbin O, Hummel M, Thoma V, Ball E, Favre R, Wattiez A (2009) Equipment failure: causes and consequences in endoscopic gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(1):28–33
Cresswell K, Cunningham-Burley S, Sheikh A (2018) Health care robotics: qualitative exploration of key challenges and future directions. J Med Internet Res 20(7):e10410
Crestani D, Godary-Dejean K, Lapierre L (2015) Enhancing fault tolerance of autonomous mobile robots. Robot Auton Syst 68:140–155
Crouch H (2020) Legal considerations when it comes to robotics in surgery. Digit Health. https://www.digitalhealth.net/2020/01/legal-considerations-robotics-surgery/. Accessed 26 Oct 2020
Custers BHM (2016) Flying to new destinations: the future of drones. In: Custers BHM (ed) The future of drone use. Springer, Heidelberg
De Vries CR, Rosenberg JS (2016) Global surgical ecosystems: a need for systems strengthening. Ann Glob Health 82(4):605–613
Doran M, Sterritt R, Wilkie G (2020) Autonomic architecture for fault handling in mobile robots. Innov Syst Softw Eng 16(3):263–288
Drejer I (2004) Service innovation. Organizational responses to technological opportunities and market imperatives; Joe Tidd and Frank M. Hull (Eds); Imperial College Press, London, September 2003; 437 pages, Book Review. Technovation 11(24):922–923
European Commission (2019) Draft Functional specifications for the European Database on Medical Devices (Eudamed)-First release (High(1)) to be audited. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/health/md_eudamed/overview_en. Accessed 30 Nov 2020
European Parliament (2017) Resolution with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.html. Accessed 07 Oct 2020
European Parliament (2019) Resolution on a comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics (2018/2088(INI)). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0081_EN.html. Accessed 07 Oct 2020
Faust RA (2007) Robotics in surgery: history, current and future applications. Nova Publishers, New York
Ferrarese A, Pozzi G, Borghi F, Marano A, Delbon P, Amato B et al (2016) Malfunctions of robotic system in surgery: role and responsibility of surgeon in legal point of view. Open Med 11(1):286–291
Ferrarese A, Pozzi G, Borghi F, Pellegrino L, Di Lorenzo P, Amato B et al (2016) Informed consent in robotic surgery: quality of information and patient perception. Open Med 11(1):279–285
Ficuciello F, Tamburrini G, Arezzo A, Villani L, Siciliano B (2019) Autonomy in surgical robots and its meaningful human control, Paladyn. J Behav Robot 10(1):30–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0002
Food and Drug Administration, FDA (2019) Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=803&showFR=1. Accessed 12 Oct 2020
Food and Drug Administration, FDA (2020a) Cybersecurity safety communications. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health/cybersecurity. Accessed 7 Oct 2020
Food and Drug Administration, FDA (2020b) Reports. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm. Accessed 7 Oct 2020
Fosch-Villaronga E (2019) Responsibility, liability, and accountability. In: Fosch-Villaronga E (ed) Robots, healthcare, and the law: regulating automation in personal care. Routledge, London, pp 147–171
Fosch-Villaronga E, Drukarch H (2021) On healthcare robots. Concepts, definitions, and considerations for healthcare robot governance, pp 1–87. ArXiv pre-print, https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03468
Fosch-Villaronga E, Golia A Jr (2019) Robots, standards and the law. Rivalries between private standards and public policymaking for robot governance. Comput Law Secur Rev 35(2):129–144
Fosch-Villaronga E, Mahler T (2021) Cybersecurity, safety and robots: strengthening the link between cybersecurity and safety in the context of care robots. Comput Law Secur Rev 41:105528
Fosch-Villaronga E, Millard C (2019) Cloud robotics law and regulation: challenges in the governance of complex and dynamic cyber–physical ecosystems. Robot Auton Syst 119:77–91
Fosch-Villaronga E, Khanna P, Drukarch H, Custers BH (2021) A human in the loop in surgery automation. Nat Mach Intell 3(5):368–369
Francis D, Bessant J (2005) Targeting innovation and implications for capability development. Technovation 25(3):171–183
Friedman DCW, Lendvay TS, Hannaford B (2013) Instrument failures for the da Vinci surgical system: a Food and Drug Administration MAUDE database study. Surg Endosc 27:1503–1508
Grillone G, Jalisi S (2014) Robotic surgery of the head and neck. Springer, Berlin, pp 30–31
Greenmeier L (2020) Robot surgeon successfully sews pig intestine. Sci Am. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robot-surgeon-successfully-sews-pig-intestine/
Guzzo TJ, Gonzalgo ML (2009) Robotic surgical training of the urologic oncologist. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 27(2):214–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.09.019
Hailey D, McDonald I (1996) The assessment of diagnostic imaging technologies: a policy perspective. Health Policy 36(2):185–197
Hellström T (2013) On the moral responsibility of military robots. Ethics Inf Technol 15(2):99–107
Hempel S, Maggard-Gibbons M, Nguyen DK, Dawes AJ, Miake-Lye I, Beroes JM et al (2015) Wrong-site surgery, retained surgical items, and surgical fires: a systematic review of surgical never events. JAMA Surg 150(8):796–805
High Level Expert Group on AI, HLEG AI (2019) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai. Accessed 7 Oct 2020
Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Hum Factors 53(5):517–527
ICC-International Chamber of Commerce (2020) Incoterms® 2020. ICC-International Chamber of Commerce. https://iccwbo.org/resources-for-business/incoterms-rules/incoterms-2020/. Accessed 6 July 2020
ISO 31000:2009(en) Risk management—principles and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/es/#iso:std:iso:31000:ed-1:v1:en
ISO (2019) IEC 80601-2-77:2019; medical electrical equipment—Part 2-77: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of robotically assisted surgical equipment. https://www.iso.org/standard/68473.html
Jaffray B (2005) Minimally invasive surgery. Arch Dis Child 90(5):537–542
Johnson DG (2015) Technology with no human responsibility? J Bus Ethics 127(4):707–715
Khodabandehloo K (1996) Analyses of robot systems using fault and event trees: case studies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 53(3):247–264
Justia (2019) Common types of medical malpractice. https://www.justia.com/injury/medical-malpractice/common-types-of-medical-malpractice/. Accessed 12 Oct 2020
Korb W, Kornfeld M, Birkfellner W, Boesecke R, Figl M, Fuerst M et al (2005) Risk analysis and safety assessment in surgical robotics: a case study on a biopsy robot. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14(1):23–31
Lane T (2018) A short history of robotic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100(6 Suppl):5–7
Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239(1):14–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000103020.19595.7d
Lasota PA, Fong T, Shah JA (2017) A survey of methods for safe human–robot interaction. Now Publishers, Norwell, p 285
Lee YL, Kilic GS, Phelps JY (2011) Medicolegal review of liability risks for gynecologists stemming from lack of training in robot-assisted surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(4):512–515
Leenes R, Palmerini E, Koops B-J, Bertolini A, Salvini P, Lucivero F (2017) Regulatory challenges of robotics: some guidelines for addressing legal and ethical issues. Law Innov Technol 9(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2017.1304921
Liao SH (2005) Technology management methodologies and applications: a literature review from 1995 to 2003. Technovation 25(4):381–393
Lucas SM, Pattison EA, Sundaram CP (2011) Global robotic experience and the type of surgical system impact the types of robotic malfunctions and their clinical consequences: an FDA MAUDE review. BJU Int 109(8):1222–1227
Manzey D, Strauss G, Trantakis C, Lueth T, Roettger S, Bahner-Heyne JE et al (2009) Automation in surgery: a systematic approach. Surg Technol Int 18:37–45
Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6(3):175–183
McLean T (2007) The complexity of litigation associated with robotic surgery and cybersurgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 3(1):23–29
Mauritz A (2003) Chapters 2–5. In: Liability of the operators and owners of aircraft for damage inflicted to persons and property on the surface. Shaker Publishers, Maastricht
Mohammad S (2013) Robotic surgery. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 3(1):2
Nouaille L, Laribi MA, Nelson CA, Zeghloul S, Poisson G (2017) Review of kinematics for minimally invasive surgery and tele-echography robots. J Med Devices 11(4):040802
Pistono F, Yampolskiy RV (2016) Unethical research: how to create a malevolent artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.02817.
Postacchini F, Cinotti G (1999) Surgical failures. In: Postacchini F (ed) Lumbar disc herniation. Springer, Vienna, pp 557–574
Prabu AJ, Narmadha J, Jeyaprakash K (2014) Artificial intelligence robotically assisted brain surgery. Artif Intell 4(05)
Reddy CL, Mitra S, Meara JG, Atun R, Afshar S (2019) Artificial Intelligence and its role in surgical care in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet Digit Health 1(8):e384–e438
Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on Medical Devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and Repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (text with EEA relevance)
Riek LD (2017) Healthcare robotics. Commun ACM 60(11):68–78
Rosenberg LB (1993), Virtual fixtures: perceptual tools for telerobotic manipulation. In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 76–82
SAE (2020) J3016B: taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE International. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/. Accessed 12 Oct 2020
Sandvik KB (2020) “Smittestopp”: if you want your freedom back, download now. Big Data Soc 7(2):2053951720939985
Scassellati B, Admoni H, Matarić M (2012) Robots for use in autism research. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:275–294
Shademan A, Decker RS, Opfermann JD, Leonard S, Krieger A, Kim PC (2016) Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery. Sci Transl Med 8(337):337ra64. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aad9398
Simshaw D, Terry N, Hauser K, Cummings ML (2015) Regulating healthcare robots: Maximizing opportunities while minimizing risks. Richmond J Law Technol 22:1
Singh J, Walden I, Crowcroft J, Bacon J (2016) Responsibility and machine learning: part of a process. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2860048. Accessed 6 Nov 2020
Shah SB, Hariharan U, Bhargava AK, Rawal SK, Chawdhary AA (2017) Robotic surgery and patient positioning: ergonomics, clinical pearls and review of literature. Trends Anaesth Crit Care 14:21–29
Singh J, Millard C, Reed C, Cobbe J, Crowcroft J (2018) Accountability in the IoT: systems, law, and ways forward. Computer 51(7):54–65
Sridhar AN, Briggs TP, Kelly JD, Nathan S (2017) Training in robotic surgery—an overview. Curr Urol Rep 18(8):58
Tapper A, Leale D, Megahan G, Nacker K, Killinger K, Hafron J (2019) Robotic instrument failure—a critical analysis of cause and quality improvement strategies. Urology 2019(131):125–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.02.052(Epub31May
Tourinho-Barbosa RR, Tobias-Machado M, Castro-Alfaro A, Ogaya-Pinies G, Cathelineau X, Sanchez-Salas R (2018) Complications in robotic urological surgeries and how to avoid them: a systematic review. Arab J Urol 16(3):285–292
Tucker MR, Olivier J, Pagel A, Bleuler H, Bouri M, Lambercy O et al (2015) Control strategies for active lower extremity prosthetics and orthotics: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 12(1):1–30
Varma TRK, Eldridge P (2006) Use of the NeuroMate stereotactic robot in a frameless mode for functional neurosurgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 2(2):107–113
Vedder AH, Custers BHM (2009) Whose responsibility is it anyway? Dealing with the consequences of new technologies. In: Sollie P, Düwell M (eds) Evaluating new technologies: methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments. Springer, New York, pp 21–34
Weerakkody RA, Cheshire NJ, Riga C, Lear R, Hamady MS, Moorthy K et al (2013) Surgical technology and operating-room safety failures: a systematic review of quantitative studies. BMJ Qual Saf 22(9):710–718
Ward JR, Clarkson PJ (2004) An analysis of medical device-related errors: prevalence and possible solutions. J Med Eng Technol 28(1):2–6
World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) (2017) Report of COMEST on Robotics Ethics. SHS/YES/COMEST-10/17/2 REV
Xie Z, Hall J, McCarthy IP, Skitmore M, Shen L (2016) Standardization efforts: the relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes. Technovation 48:69–78
Yang GZ, Cambias J, Cleary K, Daimler E, Drake J, Dupont PE, Hata N, Kazanzides P, Martel S, Patel RV, Santos VJ, Taylor RH (2017) Medical robotics—regulatory, ethical, and legal considerations for increasing levels of autonomy. Sci Robot 2(4):eaam8638
Yip M, Das N (2017) Robot autonomy for surgery. http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03080. Accessed 12 Oct 2020
Zejnullahu VA, Bicaj BX, Zejnullahu VA, Hamza AR (2017) Retained surgical foreign bodies after surgery. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 5(1):97