English Script Request

So, the majority of surgery in the world is still done open, and ... argument ... necessary to do minimal access, and that argument has now been settled. It has clear indications for pain, wound complications, outcomes, general complications, that minimal access surgery is better than open surgery. Why do not more than 30 to 40% of people do minimal access? Because it's difficult, and they can't. So, therefore, is there a need for robotic surgery? Yes, because robotic is easier to do than minimal access, and therefore hopefully mean more people can have minimal access surgery. The Verseus (?) is completely different. The modularity is the most exciting concept. So, the arms can be positioned where you need them to be positioned in order to do the operation as you'd normally do it macroscopically, so you're not constrained in any way by the position of the arms, and you're not constrained by the set-up of the robot. So that enables you, 1) both to do what we do at the moment, free, and 2) it provides a glimpse that we will be able to change things, because we will have this versatility which doesn't exist with the other robot. The other really big option is that Verseus is operating through 5-millimeter instruments, which means we can use 5 millimeter ports. The smaller the port, the less the complications with it. It'll also allow access to parts of the abdomen that are difficult for bigger instruments. So it'll almost certainly enable development of new techniques. The couple of obvious errors we're looking at already, the a-foh-gee-i (?) operations with herniation and some of the beriatric surgery lend themselves very very well to the Verseus and are currently very difficult to do with other ways. And then the whole range of unique, novel operations, which the surgeons that work in those domains have already highlighted to me that they think they will be able to do with the robot that they can't currently do with ordinary macroscopic surgery.