<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_16_2318223</id>
	<title>The State of Robotic Surgery</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268762760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>kkleiner writes <i>"<a href="http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/16/robot-surgery-thy-name-is-davinci/">Robotic surgery is experiencing explosive growth</a> in America's operating rooms, and the unquestioned industry leader in this field is the DaVinci robot, made by Intuitive Surgical. Only 14\% of prostate surgeries in the US last year took place <em>not</em> using the DaVinci. Installations have grown from 210 systems seven years ago to 1,395 today. Although typically used for smaller surgeries like prostate removal and hysterectomies, the system was recently used for a kidney transplant, and more complicated procedures are expected in the future. The DaVinci is really just the first wave of robotic surgery as technology continues to push clumsy human hands out of the operating room."</i> The article mentions some of the downsides, or perhaps the growing pains, of DaVinci robotic surgery: "According to a large study of Medicare patients, robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications, but had worse results for impotence and incontinence ..." Another company makes a simulator to train surgeons on the DaVinci. Embedded in the article is a 2009 TED talk on DaVinci by a surgeon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>kkleiner writes " Robotic surgery is experiencing explosive growth in America 's operating rooms , and the unquestioned industry leader in this field is the DaVinci robot , made by Intuitive Surgical .
Only 14 \ % of prostate surgeries in the US last year took place not using the DaVinci .
Installations have grown from 210 systems seven years ago to 1,395 today .
Although typically used for smaller surgeries like prostate removal and hysterectomies , the system was recently used for a kidney transplant , and more complicated procedures are expected in the future .
The DaVinci is really just the first wave of robotic surgery as technology continues to push clumsy human hands out of the operating room .
" The article mentions some of the downsides , or perhaps the growing pains , of DaVinci robotic surgery : " According to a large study of Medicare patients , robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications , but had worse results for impotence and incontinence ... " Another company makes a simulator to train surgeons on the DaVinci .
Embedded in the article is a 2009 TED talk on DaVinci by a surgeon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kkleiner writes "Robotic surgery is experiencing explosive growth in America's operating rooms, and the unquestioned industry leader in this field is the DaVinci robot, made by Intuitive Surgical.
Only 14\% of prostate surgeries in the US last year took place not using the DaVinci.
Installations have grown from 210 systems seven years ago to 1,395 today.
Although typically used for smaller surgeries like prostate removal and hysterectomies, the system was recently used for a kidney transplant, and more complicated procedures are expected in the future.
The DaVinci is really just the first wave of robotic surgery as technology continues to push clumsy human hands out of the operating room.
" The article mentions some of the downsides, or perhaps the growing pains, of DaVinci robotic surgery: "According to a large study of Medicare patients, robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications, but had worse results for impotence and incontinence ..." Another company makes a simulator to train surgeons on the DaVinci.
Embedded in the article is a 2009 TED talk on DaVinci by a surgeon.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505514</id>
	<title>Unanswered question</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1268857620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only 14\% of prostate surgeries in the US last year took place <i>not</i> using the DaVinci.</p></div><p>Okay, so DaVinci is by far the market leader - but of that minority 14\%, how many are using Medibot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 14 \ % of prostate surgeries in the US last year took place not using the DaVinci.Okay , so DaVinci is by far the market leader - but of that minority 14 \ % , how many are using Medibot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 14\% of prostate surgeries in the US last year took place not using the DaVinci.Okay, so DaVinci is by far the market leader - but of that minority 14\%, how many are using Medibot?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506688</id>
	<title>IANAL math</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1268829720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>fewer in-hospital complications<br>
</b>minus<b> <br>
worse results for impotence and incontinence<br>
</b>plus<b> <br>
210 systems seven years ago to 1,395 today<br>
</b>equals<b> <br>
It is a lot harder to sue for impotence and incontinence than it is for in-hospital complications</b></p><p>
Sounds likely, but IANAL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fewer in-hospital complications minus worse results for impotence and incontinence plus 210 systems seven years ago to 1,395 today equals It is a lot harder to sue for impotence and incontinence than it is for in-hospital complications Sounds likely , but IANAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fewer in-hospital complications
minus 
worse results for impotence and incontinence
plus 
210 systems seven years ago to 1,395 today
equals 
It is a lot harder to sue for impotence and incontinence than it is for in-hospital complications
Sounds likely, but IANAL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505432</id>
	<title>Nosferatu</title>
	<author>moteyalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1268769420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A member of my family has been doing this type of work for several decades. I have been studying genetics and developing a mitochondrial operating system. It is merely a concept which I think is workable. It would transform the organism in such a way that it could function as several trillion parallel process control computers. It takes a long time to bring a concept as complex as this from idea to implementation. I have been working on it for seven years now and expect that it will be a reality eventually if nothing else seems a better approach. <br>
I do wonder what it means though. At first it seemed a really neat idea and the methods are not much more difficult than maintaining an open source OS. It does seem that if every cell contains the necessary data to evoke the organism, it would be no different than a liquid terminator or vampire in its result. <br>
There are organisms which regenerate themselves from their parts. Members of Planariidae, for one. As it becomes more feasible it occurs to me that it is very odd in its consequence. I had a bad feeling when I first cloned an organism, as if I should not be allowed to do such a thing. <br>
DARPA is considering experiments with genetically engineered soldiers merged with nano technology and electronic extensions. To paraphrase a common meme at slashdot , on the Internet, technology advances you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A member of my family has been doing this type of work for several decades .
I have been studying genetics and developing a mitochondrial operating system .
It is merely a concept which I think is workable .
It would transform the organism in such a way that it could function as several trillion parallel process control computers .
It takes a long time to bring a concept as complex as this from idea to implementation .
I have been working on it for seven years now and expect that it will be a reality eventually if nothing else seems a better approach .
I do wonder what it means though .
At first it seemed a really neat idea and the methods are not much more difficult than maintaining an open source OS .
It does seem that if every cell contains the necessary data to evoke the organism , it would be no different than a liquid terminator or vampire in its result .
There are organisms which regenerate themselves from their parts .
Members of Planariidae , for one .
As it becomes more feasible it occurs to me that it is very odd in its consequence .
I had a bad feeling when I first cloned an organism , as if I should not be allowed to do such a thing .
DARPA is considering experiments with genetically engineered soldiers merged with nano technology and electronic extensions .
To paraphrase a common meme at slashdot , on the Internet , technology advances you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A member of my family has been doing this type of work for several decades.
I have been studying genetics and developing a mitochondrial operating system.
It is merely a concept which I think is workable.
It would transform the organism in such a way that it could function as several trillion parallel process control computers.
It takes a long time to bring a concept as complex as this from idea to implementation.
I have been working on it for seven years now and expect that it will be a reality eventually if nothing else seems a better approach.
I do wonder what it means though.
At first it seemed a really neat idea and the methods are not much more difficult than maintaining an open source OS.
It does seem that if every cell contains the necessary data to evoke the organism, it would be no different than a liquid terminator or vampire in its result.
There are organisms which regenerate themselves from their parts.
Members of Planariidae, for one.
As it becomes more feasible it occurs to me that it is very odd in its consequence.
I had a bad feeling when I first cloned an organism, as if I should not be allowed to do such a thing.
DARPA is considering experiments with genetically engineered soldiers merged with nano technology and electronic extensions.
To paraphrase a common meme at slashdot , on the Internet, technology advances you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505652</id>
	<title>Just like laparoscopic surgery maybe?</title>
	<author>mednerd</author>
	<datestamp>1268816880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when laparoscopic surgery came in there were all these studies done that showed one thing or another. for example, a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (removal of the gallbladder) is a very common operation. apparently there are studies done that show 10\% of the time you will have damage to the common bile duct (which would be bad). any general surgeon worth his salt these days will tell you that 10\% chance is more like 0.5\% or better.

</p><p>my point is, maybe people just need to get better at using these things? it's not like playing a computer game, the surgery is still very complicated.

</p><p>of course I'm no expert but hey, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when laparoscopic surgery came in there were all these studies done that showed one thing or another .
for example , a laparoscopic cholecystectomy ( removal of the gallbladder ) is a very common operation .
apparently there are studies done that show 10 \ % of the time you will have damage to the common bile duct ( which would be bad ) .
any general surgeon worth his salt these days will tell you that 10 \ % chance is more like 0.5 \ % or better .
my point is , maybe people just need to get better at using these things ?
it 's not like playing a computer game , the surgery is still very complicated .
of course I 'm no expert but hey , this is / .
is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when laparoscopic surgery came in there were all these studies done that showed one thing or another.
for example, a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (removal of the gallbladder) is a very common operation.
apparently there are studies done that show 10\% of the time you will have damage to the common bile duct (which would be bad).
any general surgeon worth his salt these days will tell you that 10\% chance is more like 0.5\% or better.
my point is, maybe people just need to get better at using these things?
it's not like playing a computer game, the surgery is still very complicated.
of course I'm no expert but hey, this is /.
isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505506</id>
	<title>A little over the top...</title>
	<author>qpawn</author>
	<datestamp>1268857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These robot doctors are very professional, except for their entrance into the operating room:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqlawTD\_9B0" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqlawTD\_9B0</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These robot doctors are very professional , except for their entrance into the operating room : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = JqlawTD \ _9B0 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These robot doctors are very professional, except for their entrance into the operating room:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqlawTD\_9B0 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506004</id>
	<title>Re:These devices are not robots.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268821500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly what I wanted to say. Nowadays the mob of idiots describe every remote-controlled machine as a robot.<br>I wonder if they would call my door opener a &ldquo;roboter&rdquo;... since it&rsquo;s obviously remotely controlled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what I wanted to say .
Nowadays the mob of idiots describe every remote-controlled machine as a robot.I wonder if they would call my door opener a    roboter    ... since it    s obviously remotely controlled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what I wanted to say.
Nowadays the mob of idiots describe every remote-controlled machine as a robot.I wonder if they would call my door opener a “roboter”... since it’s obviously remotely controlled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506662</id>
	<title>Re:Unanswered question</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1268829480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Okay, so DaVinci is by far the market leader</p></div><p>And we know with a far higher degree of certainty than any of the bogus stats in the article that that means they have mediocre technology but great marketing.</p><p>Being "market leader" in a cutting edge (as it were) field is in my experience almost always an indication that the tech is poor to middling but the company is brilliant at marketing.  I'm not just talking about Microsoft here, although they are a prominent example of the phenomenon.  In the areas I've worked in professionally (which includes image-guided surgery) the best technology has never been close to the market leader.</p><p>Personally, I don't want a surgeon using a machine from the market leader on me until the technology is mature, which doesn't happen for decades.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so DaVinci is by far the market leaderAnd we know with a far higher degree of certainty than any of the bogus stats in the article that that means they have mediocre technology but great marketing.Being " market leader " in a cutting edge ( as it were ) field is in my experience almost always an indication that the tech is poor to middling but the company is brilliant at marketing .
I 'm not just talking about Microsoft here , although they are a prominent example of the phenomenon .
In the areas I 've worked in professionally ( which includes image-guided surgery ) the best technology has never been close to the market leader.Personally , I do n't want a surgeon using a machine from the market leader on me until the technology is mature , which does n't happen for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so DaVinci is by far the market leaderAnd we know with a far higher degree of certainty than any of the bogus stats in the article that that means they have mediocre technology but great marketing.Being "market leader" in a cutting edge (as it were) field is in my experience almost always an indication that the tech is poor to middling but the company is brilliant at marketing.
I'm not just talking about Microsoft here, although they are a prominent example of the phenomenon.
In the areas I've worked in professionally (which includes image-guided surgery) the best technology has never been close to the market leader.Personally, I don't want a surgeon using a machine from the market leader on me until the technology is mature, which doesn't happen for decades.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31507842</id>
	<title>Robotic prostate surgery?</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1268837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, there's <strong>NO</strong> way I'm letting a robot with scalpels anywhere near that portion of my anatomy. I prefer not to be one integer underflow exception away from singing soprano.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , there 's NO way I 'm letting a robot with scalpels anywhere near that portion of my anatomy .
I prefer not to be one integer underflow exception away from singing soprano .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, there's NO way I'm letting a robot with scalpels anywhere near that portion of my anatomy.
I prefer not to be one integer underflow exception away from singing soprano.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31509726</id>
	<title>Re:Incontinence or Death</title>
	<author>OhHellWithIt</author>
	<datestamp>1268845860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you rather be dead or incontinent? I'll take the diapers. Impotent? I'll have to think about it.</p></div><p>For me, the notion of diapers in my fifties was far worse than impotence. As another prostate cancer patient observed, you've got a lot better chance getting a woman into bed if you have bladder control. Luckily, the odds are better for continence than potency, and the former comes back much faster. (But neither one comes back soon enough!)
</p><p>FWIW, I considered both open and Da Vinci surgery, and I chose the open surgery after lots of reading and discussion, but mainly because I felt like the Da Vinci surgeon was trying to sell me on his method, while the traditional surgeon didn't seem to even be selling surgery; he freely explained reasons that I might want to consider radiation. In one of my meetings with my surgeon, I asked him which he would choose if he were in my situation, and he said &quot;Open, without question!&quot; He said the feel of the tissue was more useful than seeing it. He also said that more Da Vinci patients report dissatisfaction about recovery than open surgery patients, mainly, he believed, because their expectations for Da Vinci were too high. He is learning to use the Da Vinci robot only because more people are demanding it.
</p><p>The bottom line, though, is that if you are in the situation of needing a prostatectomy, you don't want to look at the statistics of method A vs. method B. You want to look at the statistics of the individual surgeons you are considering and go with the one you are completely confident with. There are no guarantees of full recovery, no matter whom you choose, and when you're recovering, you do not want to be asking &quot;What if?&quot; It's a moot question, anyway: there is only what is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather be dead or incontinent ?
I 'll take the diapers .
Impotent ? I 'll have to think about it.For me , the notion of diapers in my fifties was far worse than impotence .
As another prostate cancer patient observed , you 've got a lot better chance getting a woman into bed if you have bladder control .
Luckily , the odds are better for continence than potency , and the former comes back much faster .
( But neither one comes back soon enough !
) FWIW , I considered both open and Da Vinci surgery , and I chose the open surgery after lots of reading and discussion , but mainly because I felt like the Da Vinci surgeon was trying to sell me on his method , while the traditional surgeon did n't seem to even be selling surgery ; he freely explained reasons that I might want to consider radiation .
In one of my meetings with my surgeon , I asked him which he would choose if he were in my situation , and he said " Open , without question !
" He said the feel of the tissue was more useful than seeing it .
He also said that more Da Vinci patients report dissatisfaction about recovery than open surgery patients , mainly , he believed , because their expectations for Da Vinci were too high .
He is learning to use the Da Vinci robot only because more people are demanding it .
The bottom line , though , is that if you are in the situation of needing a prostatectomy , you do n't want to look at the statistics of method A vs. method B. You want to look at the statistics of the individual surgeons you are considering and go with the one you are completely confident with .
There are no guarantees of full recovery , no matter whom you choose , and when you 're recovering , you do not want to be asking " What if ?
" It 's a moot question , anyway : there is only what is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather be dead or incontinent?
I'll take the diapers.
Impotent? I'll have to think about it.For me, the notion of diapers in my fifties was far worse than impotence.
As another prostate cancer patient observed, you've got a lot better chance getting a woman into bed if you have bladder control.
Luckily, the odds are better for continence than potency, and the former comes back much faster.
(But neither one comes back soon enough!
)
FWIW, I considered both open and Da Vinci surgery, and I chose the open surgery after lots of reading and discussion, but mainly because I felt like the Da Vinci surgeon was trying to sell me on his method, while the traditional surgeon didn't seem to even be selling surgery; he freely explained reasons that I might want to consider radiation.
In one of my meetings with my surgeon, I asked him which he would choose if he were in my situation, and he said "Open, without question!
" He said the feel of the tissue was more useful than seeing it.
He also said that more Da Vinci patients report dissatisfaction about recovery than open surgery patients, mainly, he believed, because their expectations for Da Vinci were too high.
He is learning to use the Da Vinci robot only because more people are demanding it.
The bottom line, though, is that if you are in the situation of needing a prostatectomy, you don't want to look at the statistics of method A vs. method B. You want to look at the statistics of the individual surgeons you are considering and go with the one you are completely confident with.
There are no guarantees of full recovery, no matter whom you choose, and when you're recovering, you do not want to be asking "What if?
" It's a moot question, anyway: there is only what is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506628</id>
	<title>Re:It's Cool.</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1268829180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1:1 motion mapping really made it feel like an extension of my body.</p></div><p>Now if we only had a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote\_manipulator" title="wikipedia.org">word</a> [wikipedia.org] to distinguish a system such as you describe from a robot...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : 1 motion mapping really made it feel like an extension of my body.Now if we only had a word [ wikipedia.org ] to distinguish a system such as you describe from a robot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1:1 motion mapping really made it feel like an extension of my body.Now if we only had a word [wikipedia.org] to distinguish a system such as you describe from a robot...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506788</id>
	<title>The skill of the person using the tool</title>
	<author>mikefocke</author>
	<datestamp>1268830560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>really matters. No matter if you are using a so called robotic tool or an X-ray generating tool, the Doctor you choose and his or her experience and success rate will determine the outcome far more than the type of treatment you choose.</p><p>When you talk to a doctor, ask him how many of the procedures he did last year and what his success rate was. I had the choice of a Doctor who answered "3 and I don't know" and a Doctor who answered "several a day and people with your 'scores" have had a success rate of x and a complications rate of y". Show me the Doctor who measures the success of the way he does a procedure and tries to improve and I'll show you the increased success active learning brings.</p><p>Plug ProstRcision into your search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really matters .
No matter if you are using a so called robotic tool or an X-ray generating tool , the Doctor you choose and his or her experience and success rate will determine the outcome far more than the type of treatment you choose.When you talk to a doctor , ask him how many of the procedures he did last year and what his success rate was .
I had the choice of a Doctor who answered " 3 and I do n't know " and a Doctor who answered " several a day and people with your 'scores " have had a success rate of x and a complications rate of y " .
Show me the Doctor who measures the success of the way he does a procedure and tries to improve and I 'll show you the increased success active learning brings.Plug ProstRcision into your search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really matters.
No matter if you are using a so called robotic tool or an X-ray generating tool, the Doctor you choose and his or her experience and success rate will determine the outcome far more than the type of treatment you choose.When you talk to a doctor, ask him how many of the procedures he did last year and what his success rate was.
I had the choice of a Doctor who answered "3 and I don't know" and a Doctor who answered "several a day and people with your 'scores" have had a success rate of x and a complications rate of y".
Show me the Doctor who measures the success of the way he does a procedure and tries to improve and I'll show you the increased success active learning brings.Plug ProstRcision into your search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505510</id>
	<title>Don't be a testing ground for these machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being nerds I know you guys all love testing out brand new tech, but the one thing these robots have taught me working in a major metro hospital is that you don't want to be a beta tester. It takes years for surgeons to 'perfect' a surgery, and if you put them in front of a machine it will take years to figure out the kinks. Always go for the tried and true tested way. New machines are dangerous while they are new and their users are inexperienced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being nerds I know you guys all love testing out brand new tech , but the one thing these robots have taught me working in a major metro hospital is that you do n't want to be a beta tester .
It takes years for surgeons to 'perfect ' a surgery , and if you put them in front of a machine it will take years to figure out the kinks .
Always go for the tried and true tested way .
New machines are dangerous while they are new and their users are inexperienced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being nerds I know you guys all love testing out brand new tech, but the one thing these robots have taught me working in a major metro hospital is that you don't want to be a beta tester.
It takes years for surgeons to 'perfect' a surgery, and if you put them in front of a machine it will take years to figure out the kinks.
Always go for the tried and true tested way.
New machines are dangerous while they are new and their users are inexperienced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505528</id>
	<title>These devices are not robots.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1268858100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're remote manipulation systems, also known as "waldoes".  Robots operate under the control of a stored program, not the direction of a human operator.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're remote manipulation systems , also known as " waldoes " .
Robots operate under the control of a stored program , not the direction of a human operator.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're remote manipulation systems, also known as "waldoes".
Robots operate under the control of a stored program, not the direction of a human operator.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505882</id>
	<title>The state of robotic surgery</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1268820180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Robotic surgery is actually pretty straightforward.  You just pop off a few screws and open the front panel on the robot's torso, and then you can get at the insides pretty easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Robotic surgery is actually pretty straightforward .
You just pop off a few screws and open the front panel on the robot 's torso , and then you can get at the insides pretty easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robotic surgery is actually pretty straightforward.
You just pop off a few screws and open the front panel on the robot's torso, and then you can get at the insides pretty easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505442</id>
	<title>Growing pains?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>According to a large study of Medicare patients, robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications, but had worse results for impotence</p></div></blockquote><p>Talking about growing pains</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a large study of Medicare patients , robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications , but had worse results for impotenceTalking about growing pains</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to a large study of Medicare patients, robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications, but had worse results for impotenceTalking about growing pains
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505484</id>
	<title>It's Cool.</title>
	<author>stuffman64</author>
	<datestamp>1268856900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our robotic overlords... I mean, helpers!</p><p>Last month I got to play with one of the Da Vinci units at a car show (why it was there is anyone's guess). I am amazed at how intuitive it was to use- even though I was just putting tiny rubber bands on small rubbery cone-thingies, the 3D display and 1:1 motion mapping really made it feel like an extension of my body. Even though the unit doesn't use force feedback, it almost seemed like it did (just my brain, I guess). The most amazing part? My 7-year-old niece had absolutely no problem using it, and now she wants to become a doctor.</p><p>Cool stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our robotic overlords... I mean , helpers ! Last month I got to play with one of the Da Vinci units at a car show ( why it was there is anyone 's guess ) .
I am amazed at how intuitive it was to use- even though I was just putting tiny rubber bands on small rubbery cone-thingies , the 3D display and 1 : 1 motion mapping really made it feel like an extension of my body .
Even though the unit does n't use force feedback , it almost seemed like it did ( just my brain , I guess ) .
The most amazing part ?
My 7-year-old niece had absolutely no problem using it , and now she wants to become a doctor.Cool stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our robotic overlords... I mean, helpers!Last month I got to play with one of the Da Vinci units at a car show (why it was there is anyone's guess).
I am amazed at how intuitive it was to use- even though I was just putting tiny rubber bands on small rubbery cone-thingies, the 3D display and 1:1 motion mapping really made it feel like an extension of my body.
Even though the unit doesn't use force feedback, it almost seemed like it did (just my brain, I guess).
The most amazing part?
My 7-year-old niece had absolutely no problem using it, and now she wants to become a doctor.Cool stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505310</id>
	<title>I was thinking Nevada.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268767140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where else could you pay to put an actual Da Vinci in your rectum?  Vegas, baby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where else could you pay to put an actual Da Vinci in your rectum ?
Vegas , baby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where else could you pay to put an actual Da Vinci in your rectum?
Vegas, baby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506758</id>
	<title>Top Grade Acai Extreme</title>
	<author>haesry</author>
	<datestamp>1268830260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The active ingredient of the product gently cleanses every single corner without any difficulty. It bleaches and repairs your teeth and gums to make you smile healthier and brighter.
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/top-grade-acai-extreme-review-how-effective-it-is-2000622.html" title="articlesbase.com" rel="nofollow">Top Grade Acai Extreme</a> [articlesbase.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The active ingredient of the product gently cleanses every single corner without any difficulty .
It bleaches and repairs your teeth and gums to make you smile healthier and brighter .
Top Grade Acai Extreme [ articlesbase.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The active ingredient of the product gently cleanses every single corner without any difficulty.
It bleaches and repairs your teeth and gums to make you smile healthier and brighter.
Top Grade Acai Extreme [articlesbase.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505372</id>
	<title>Cost benefit?</title>
	<author>S1ngularity</author>
	<datestamp>1268768280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what effect this sort of technological uptake have on health cost containment?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what effect this sort of technological uptake have on health cost containment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what effect this sort of technological uptake have on health cost containment?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31508570</id>
	<title>Re:Should put one on the ISS (or Antarctica)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This idea is always floated around, and it is fantastic in theory, but it fails to take into account that you still need at least some surgical ability onsite to use a DaVinci. Ports have to be placed, some of the work is still done as traditional lap, and one always needs to be ready to perform emergency conversion to an open surgery. All of these things still require human hands trained in surgery. A tech or nurse could theoretically do it, but I'd much rather a surgeon do the work.</p><p>The more interesting use of robotics in surgery is in rural areas. Suppose you have a general surgeon, but need to perform a more complicated procedure that requires the expertise of a sub-specialty. In that instance, the general surgeon can do the setup and allow the specialty surgeon to control the robot. This extends the specialty surgeons range and decreases the need to have onsite surgeons in every specialty for rural areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea is always floated around , and it is fantastic in theory , but it fails to take into account that you still need at least some surgical ability onsite to use a DaVinci .
Ports have to be placed , some of the work is still done as traditional lap , and one always needs to be ready to perform emergency conversion to an open surgery .
All of these things still require human hands trained in surgery .
A tech or nurse could theoretically do it , but I 'd much rather a surgeon do the work.The more interesting use of robotics in surgery is in rural areas .
Suppose you have a general surgeon , but need to perform a more complicated procedure that requires the expertise of a sub-specialty .
In that instance , the general surgeon can do the setup and allow the specialty surgeon to control the robot .
This extends the specialty surgeons range and decreases the need to have onsite surgeons in every specialty for rural areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea is always floated around, and it is fantastic in theory, but it fails to take into account that you still need at least some surgical ability onsite to use a DaVinci.
Ports have to be placed, some of the work is still done as traditional lap, and one always needs to be ready to perform emergency conversion to an open surgery.
All of these things still require human hands trained in surgery.
A tech or nurse could theoretically do it, but I'd much rather a surgeon do the work.The more interesting use of robotics in surgery is in rural areas.
Suppose you have a general surgeon, but need to perform a more complicated procedure that requires the expertise of a sub-specialty.
In that instance, the general surgeon can do the setup and allow the specialty surgeon to control the robot.
This extends the specialty surgeons range and decreases the need to have onsite surgeons in every specialty for rural areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31508866</id>
	<title>Before having prostate surgery</title>
	<author>Budenny</author>
	<datestamp>1268842380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before prostate surgery for you or someone you know, whether robotic or human, check it out very carefully.  I did on behalf of someone else, and came to the conclusion that the optimal treatment is intermittent hormone blockage.  The technique is, you have total hormonal block for about 9 to 15 months - until PSA falls to zero.  Then you go off the blockade.</p><p>The rationale is that prostate cancer grows in the presence of testosterone.  When testosterone is removed, it dies.  It then, in the total absence of testosterone, becomes hormone refractory, that is, it grows in the absence of hormone.  You then restore the hormone, and it reverses again.</p><p>That at least was my own conclusion, and what I will try if need be.  I concluded that local treatments have almost universal side effects of impotence and incontinence, which I think are underreported.  And that the dangerous forms of the cancer are probably inoperable locally anyway.</p><p>If over some age, don't know quite what, perhaps 80, I concluded there is no point in surgery.  We will almost all of us die with prostate cancer.  Very few of us will die of it.  Over 80, local treatment is probably almost never a good idea.</p><p>And do not forget that the biopsy procedure is not risk free, particularly for older men.  It can induce total urinary blockage.  This then leads to permanent catheterization, which will inevitably result in blockages, followed by hospital visits in the middle of the night, followed by MRSA infections.  This happened in a case I knew well.  The result was real misery for quite a few years, followed eventually by death from the complications of repeated MRSA infections.</p><p>As I said sadly at the time, the tragedy is, he was one of the few men of his age in the country who when biopsied did not test positive.  But even if it had, surgery was impossible given his heart health.  It wasted the rest of a life, for no good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before prostate surgery for you or someone you know , whether robotic or human , check it out very carefully .
I did on behalf of someone else , and came to the conclusion that the optimal treatment is intermittent hormone blockage .
The technique is , you have total hormonal block for about 9 to 15 months - until PSA falls to zero .
Then you go off the blockade.The rationale is that prostate cancer grows in the presence of testosterone .
When testosterone is removed , it dies .
It then , in the total absence of testosterone , becomes hormone refractory , that is , it grows in the absence of hormone .
You then restore the hormone , and it reverses again.That at least was my own conclusion , and what I will try if need be .
I concluded that local treatments have almost universal side effects of impotence and incontinence , which I think are underreported .
And that the dangerous forms of the cancer are probably inoperable locally anyway.If over some age , do n't know quite what , perhaps 80 , I concluded there is no point in surgery .
We will almost all of us die with prostate cancer .
Very few of us will die of it .
Over 80 , local treatment is probably almost never a good idea.And do not forget that the biopsy procedure is not risk free , particularly for older men .
It can induce total urinary blockage .
This then leads to permanent catheterization , which will inevitably result in blockages , followed by hospital visits in the middle of the night , followed by MRSA infections .
This happened in a case I knew well .
The result was real misery for quite a few years , followed eventually by death from the complications of repeated MRSA infections.As I said sadly at the time , the tragedy is , he was one of the few men of his age in the country who when biopsied did not test positive .
But even if it had , surgery was impossible given his heart health .
It wasted the rest of a life , for no good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before prostate surgery for you or someone you know, whether robotic or human, check it out very carefully.
I did on behalf of someone else, and came to the conclusion that the optimal treatment is intermittent hormone blockage.
The technique is, you have total hormonal block for about 9 to 15 months - until PSA falls to zero.
Then you go off the blockade.The rationale is that prostate cancer grows in the presence of testosterone.
When testosterone is removed, it dies.
It then, in the total absence of testosterone, becomes hormone refractory, that is, it grows in the absence of hormone.
You then restore the hormone, and it reverses again.That at least was my own conclusion, and what I will try if need be.
I concluded that local treatments have almost universal side effects of impotence and incontinence, which I think are underreported.
And that the dangerous forms of the cancer are probably inoperable locally anyway.If over some age, don't know quite what, perhaps 80, I concluded there is no point in surgery.
We will almost all of us die with prostate cancer.
Very few of us will die of it.
Over 80, local treatment is probably almost never a good idea.And do not forget that the biopsy procedure is not risk free, particularly for older men.
It can induce total urinary blockage.
This then leads to permanent catheterization, which will inevitably result in blockages, followed by hospital visits in the middle of the night, followed by MRSA infections.
This happened in a case I knew well.
The result was real misery for quite a few years, followed eventually by death from the complications of repeated MRSA infections.As I said sadly at the time, the tragedy is, he was one of the few men of his age in the country who when biopsied did not test positive.
But even if it had, surgery was impossible given his heart health.
It wasted the rest of a life, for no good reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505408</id>
	<title>Really difficult surgery</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268769120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be interesting if robots like the DaVinci could in future operate on a smaller scale and in trickier parts of the body. Some cancers (for example) are inoperable because of their location in the body. Maybe a robot could cut out most of the tumor in these cases and leave chemotherapy or radiotherapy devices behind the clean up the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be interesting if robots like the DaVinci could in future operate on a smaller scale and in trickier parts of the body .
Some cancers ( for example ) are inoperable because of their location in the body .
Maybe a robot could cut out most of the tumor in these cases and leave chemotherapy or radiotherapy devices behind the clean up the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be interesting if robots like the DaVinci could in future operate on a smaller scale and in trickier parts of the body.
Some cancers (for example) are inoperable because of their location in the body.
Maybe a robot could cut out most of the tumor in these cases and leave chemotherapy or radiotherapy devices behind the clean up the rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505306</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268767080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read the summary. But, given the title, I'd say...</p><p>They're taking our jobs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the summary .
But , given the title , I 'd say...They 're taking our jobs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the summary.
But, given the title, I'd say...They're taking our jobs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31658512</id>
	<title>Re:It's Cool.</title>
	<author>VeNoM0619</author>
	<datestamp>1269883140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Last month I got to play with one of the Da Vinci units at a car show <b>(why it was there is anyone's guess).</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <b>My 7-year-old niece</b> had absolutely no problem using it, and <b>now she wants to become a doctor.</b></p> </div><p>Getting kids interested of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last month I got to play with one of the Da Vinci units at a car show ( why it was there is anyone 's guess ) .
... My 7-year-old niece had absolutely no problem using it , and now she wants to become a doctor .
Getting kids interested of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last month I got to play with one of the Da Vinci units at a car show (why it was there is anyone's guess).
... My 7-year-old niece had absolutely no problem using it, and now she wants to become a doctor.
Getting kids interested of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505292</id>
	<title>Incontinence or Death</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268766780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications, but had worse results for impotence and incontinence</p></div></blockquote><p>Would you rather be dead or incontinent? I'll take the diapers. Impotent? I'll have to think about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications , but had worse results for impotence and incontinenceWould you rather be dead or incontinent ?
I 'll take the diapers .
Impotent ? I 'll have to think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>robotic prostate surgery led to fewer in-hospital complications, but had worse results for impotence and incontinenceWould you rather be dead or incontinent?
I'll take the diapers.
Impotent? I'll have to think about it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505412</id>
	<title>Surgical Automats</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1268769120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how long until there's completely unmanned surgical automats?  That would be pretty scary and at the same time pretty cool, in a dark cyberpunk future kind of way...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how long until there 's completely unmanned surgical automats ?
That would be pretty scary and at the same time pretty cool , in a dark cyberpunk future kind of way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how long until there's completely unmanned surgical automats?
That would be pretty scary and at the same time pretty cool, in a dark cyberpunk future kind of way...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505426</id>
	<title>What was the rate of complications?</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268769420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what the actual numbers were of complications.</p><p>If it reduced deaths from 2 to 1 per 1,000 and only increased the rate of incontinance from 1 per hundred to 2 per hundred then that seems like a good trade off.  But two unrelated statistics without the details are difficult to compare.</p><p>If you had a procedure that killed 70\% of the people and could reduce it to 10\% but only increased the chance of side effects by 1\% then it's a no-brainer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what the actual numbers were of complications.If it reduced deaths from 2 to 1 per 1,000 and only increased the rate of incontinance from 1 per hundred to 2 per hundred then that seems like a good trade off .
But two unrelated statistics without the details are difficult to compare.If you had a procedure that killed 70 \ % of the people and could reduce it to 10 \ % but only increased the chance of side effects by 1 \ % then it 's a no-brainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what the actual numbers were of complications.If it reduced deaths from 2 to 1 per 1,000 and only increased the rate of incontinance from 1 per hundred to 2 per hundred then that seems like a good trade off.
But two unrelated statistics without the details are difficult to compare.If you had a procedure that killed 70\% of the people and could reduce it to 10\% but only increased the chance of side effects by 1\% then it's a no-brainer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505598</id>
	<title>Re:Incontinence or Death</title>
	<author>bronney</author>
	<datestamp>1268859180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/read/246100/" title="ebaumsworld.com">http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/read/246100/</a> [ebaumsworld.com]</p><p>Death, by incontinence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/read/246100/ [ ebaumsworld.com ] Death , by incontinence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/read/246100/ [ebaumsworld.com]Death, by incontinence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505768</id>
	<title>Brain surgeon</title>
	<author>ThaReetLad</author>
	<datestamp>1268818440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company I work for also makes robots for surgery, but this time for brain surgery.<br><a href="http://www.renishaw.com/en/neuromate-the-no-1-image-guided-neurosurgical-robot--10712" title="renishaw.com" rel="nofollow">neuromate&#174;: the No. 1 image-guided neurosurgical robot</a> [renishaw.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company I work for also makes robots for surgery , but this time for brain surgery.neuromate   : the No .
1 image-guided neurosurgical robot [ renishaw.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company I work for also makes robots for surgery, but this time for brain surgery.neuromate®: the No.
1 image-guided neurosurgical robot [renishaw.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31509534</id>
	<title>Before having prostate surgery: part 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10Ablin.html</p><p>Read that article if you're considering having a PSA test.  The key assertion, that there are  tremendous number of false postives and that for each man saved by PSA + Prostate surgery, 47 men are needlessly harmed frequently resulting in incontinence and erectile disfunction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10Ablin.htmlRead that article if you 're considering having a PSA test .
The key assertion , that there are tremendous number of false postives and that for each man saved by PSA + Prostate surgery , 47 men are needlessly harmed frequently resulting in incontinence and erectile disfunction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10Ablin.htmlRead that article if you're considering having a PSA test.
The key assertion, that there are  tremendous number of false postives and that for each man saved by PSA + Prostate surgery, 47 men are needlessly harmed frequently resulting in incontinence and erectile disfunction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505304</id>
	<title>Top Grade Acai</title>
	<author>namirosei</author>
	<datestamp>1268767080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am planning on writing this as a casual teen/young adult sci-fi read. I will start writing this weekend.
Top Grade acai</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am planning on writing this as a casual teen/young adult sci-fi read .
I will start writing this weekend .
Top Grade acai</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am planning on writing this as a casual teen/young adult sci-fi read.
I will start writing this weekend.
Top Grade acai</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505318</id>
	<title>almost there, with some improvements</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268767260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while the impotence and incontinence may seem a minor inconvenience to our silicon brethren, I'm a little fond of the constitional and occasional shag, that's some bleeding edge there</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while the impotence and incontinence may seem a minor inconvenience to our silicon brethren , I 'm a little fond of the constitional and occasional shag , that 's some bleeding edge there</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while the impotence and incontinence may seem a minor inconvenience to our silicon brethren, I'm a little fond of the constitional and occasional shag, that's some bleeding edge there</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505280</id>
	<title>FROSTY AFRICAN PISS!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268766540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does it say on the inside of a nigger's lips?  INFLATE TO 30 PSI</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it say on the inside of a nigger 's lips ?
INFLATE TO 30 PSI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it say on the inside of a nigger's lips?
INFLATE TO 30 PSI</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505524</id>
	<title>Should put one on the ISS (or Antarctica)</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1268858100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best use for this would be to put one on the ISS (or other "nearby" manned spacecraft where speed of light time-lag is not too long).</p><p>That way, you'll have an emergency "surgeon" available in case of a medical emergency.  Nowhere near as good as a real live doc but better than nothing.</p><p>I understand a few years ago, a female scientist had to be evacuated from the Antarctic base in the dead of the ANTARCTIC(!) winter because she had breast cancer.  This could have prevented that (and eliminated the risk to the rescue crew.  I think they had to keep the plane's engines on so that the skids wouldn't freeze to the ice).</p><p>Now what was the name of that "emergency medical program" on Star Trek?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best use for this would be to put one on the ISS ( or other " nearby " manned spacecraft where speed of light time-lag is not too long ) .That way , you 'll have an emergency " surgeon " available in case of a medical emergency .
Nowhere near as good as a real live doc but better than nothing.I understand a few years ago , a female scientist had to be evacuated from the Antarctic base in the dead of the ANTARCTIC ( !
) winter because she had breast cancer .
This could have prevented that ( and eliminated the risk to the rescue crew .
I think they had to keep the plane 's engines on so that the skids would n't freeze to the ice ) .Now what was the name of that " emergency medical program " on Star Trek ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best use for this would be to put one on the ISS (or other "nearby" manned spacecraft where speed of light time-lag is not too long).That way, you'll have an emergency "surgeon" available in case of a medical emergency.
Nowhere near as good as a real live doc but better than nothing.I understand a few years ago, a female scientist had to be evacuated from the Antarctic base in the dead of the ANTARCTIC(!
) winter because she had breast cancer.
This could have prevented that (and eliminated the risk to the rescue crew.
I think they had to keep the plane's engines on so that the skids wouldn't freeze to the ice).Now what was the name of that "emergency medical program" on Star Trek?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506368</id>
	<title>Re:These devices are not robots.</title>
	<author>javilon</author>
	<datestamp>1268825760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're remote manipulation systems</p></div><p>What we need is companies like Da Vinci making lots of money and evolving the technology into real robots.</p><p>The first phase in the evolution path is likely to be first adding tactile sensors, then chemical sensors, and relying all that information to the doctor, processing it before presentation so the doctor can use all that information in an easy way.</p><p>Second phase would be to add more autonomy to the tool, so it makes "decisions" like identifying tissues and for example warning before cutting through nerves or scaling the surgeon movements depending on the area and tissue type it is working at that point, as to make it safer.</p><p>Third phase would be to add more autonomy and let some of the tools to be moved by the computer in coordination of the surgeon actions, so for example the computer could take care of draining blood without the surgeon intervention. In order to do that, the computer needs to be able to tell one tissue type from another, and understand the organization of the body area it is working in.</p><p>Then some stereotypical parts of the operation could be carried on completely automated.</p><p>Finally, eventually the full operation would be carried by the computer.</p><p>I would really like computers take over. Even if they are worst than actual surgeons. There are two advantages.</p><p>The first one is price. A lot of operations are not carried because of economic reasons. People in that situation would prefer even a "bad" robotic surgeon than nothing.</p><p>The second would be consistency. There would be no variability between one robot and the next. Now the outcome of your operation depends so much on what surgeon performs it and if he has a good day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're remote manipulation systemsWhat we need is companies like Da Vinci making lots of money and evolving the technology into real robots.The first phase in the evolution path is likely to be first adding tactile sensors , then chemical sensors , and relying all that information to the doctor , processing it before presentation so the doctor can use all that information in an easy way.Second phase would be to add more autonomy to the tool , so it makes " decisions " like identifying tissues and for example warning before cutting through nerves or scaling the surgeon movements depending on the area and tissue type it is working at that point , as to make it safer.Third phase would be to add more autonomy and let some of the tools to be moved by the computer in coordination of the surgeon actions , so for example the computer could take care of draining blood without the surgeon intervention .
In order to do that , the computer needs to be able to tell one tissue type from another , and understand the organization of the body area it is working in.Then some stereotypical parts of the operation could be carried on completely automated.Finally , eventually the full operation would be carried by the computer.I would really like computers take over .
Even if they are worst than actual surgeons .
There are two advantages.The first one is price .
A lot of operations are not carried because of economic reasons .
People in that situation would prefer even a " bad " robotic surgeon than nothing.The second would be consistency .
There would be no variability between one robot and the next .
Now the outcome of your operation depends so much on what surgeon performs it and if he has a good day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're remote manipulation systemsWhat we need is companies like Da Vinci making lots of money and evolving the technology into real robots.The first phase in the evolution path is likely to be first adding tactile sensors, then chemical sensors, and relying all that information to the doctor, processing it before presentation so the doctor can use all that information in an easy way.Second phase would be to add more autonomy to the tool, so it makes "decisions" like identifying tissues and for example warning before cutting through nerves or scaling the surgeon movements depending on the area and tissue type it is working at that point, as to make it safer.Third phase would be to add more autonomy and let some of the tools to be moved by the computer in coordination of the surgeon actions, so for example the computer could take care of draining blood without the surgeon intervention.
In order to do that, the computer needs to be able to tell one tissue type from another, and understand the organization of the body area it is working in.Then some stereotypical parts of the operation could be carried on completely automated.Finally, eventually the full operation would be carried by the computer.I would really like computers take over.
Even if they are worst than actual surgeons.
There are two advantages.The first one is price.
A lot of operations are not carried because of economic reasons.
People in that situation would prefer even a "bad" robotic surgeon than nothing.The second would be consistency.
There would be no variability between one robot and the next.
Now the outcome of your operation depends so much on what surgeon performs it and if he has a good day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505654</id>
	<title>Do you need robots for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268816880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After spending some weeks in the hospital as observer and talking to various surgeons about these robots I was basically told that a prostate surgery using DaVinci takes about as much time as with Minimal invasive surgery, but costs a lot more (instruments can be used 10 times (DRM) on the DaVinci and are really expensive ($2000+ I think)). You also have absolutely no feedback ( I got to play with one for 30 seconds before I got crazy about the 50Hz 3D screen and I broke stitching wires with it by pulling them apart).</p><p>The coolest operation with the DaVinci I hear about was an Aorta replacement. Save splitting your breast plate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After spending some weeks in the hospital as observer and talking to various surgeons about these robots I was basically told that a prostate surgery using DaVinci takes about as much time as with Minimal invasive surgery , but costs a lot more ( instruments can be used 10 times ( DRM ) on the DaVinci and are really expensive ( $ 2000 + I think ) ) .
You also have absolutely no feedback ( I got to play with one for 30 seconds before I got crazy about the 50Hz 3D screen and I broke stitching wires with it by pulling them apart ) .The coolest operation with the DaVinci I hear about was an Aorta replacement .
Save splitting your breast plate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After spending some weeks in the hospital as observer and talking to various surgeons about these robots I was basically told that a prostate surgery using DaVinci takes about as much time as with Minimal invasive surgery, but costs a lot more (instruments can be used 10 times (DRM) on the DaVinci and are really expensive ($2000+ I think)).
You also have absolutely no feedback ( I got to play with one for 30 seconds before I got crazy about the 50Hz 3D screen and I broke stitching wires with it by pulling them apart).The coolest operation with the DaVinci I hear about was an Aorta replacement.
Save splitting your breast plate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2318223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31509726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2318223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2318223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2318223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31658512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2318223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31508570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2318223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2318223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2318223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31508570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31509726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31658512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31506628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2318223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2318223.31505882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
