When innovation exceeds adoption, patients pay the price

Health care overflows with innovation, diagnoses of AI to robot assisted surgery. However, the adoption of these breakthroughs in daily clinical practice is often late. This disconnection is particularly apparent in surgical robotics, in particular in the field of endovascular procedures.

This disturbing discrepancy between innovation and adoption is painfully obvious in endovascular surgery, where robotics has the potential to improve safety, precision and results – and yet innovation tested and approved remains underused in daily clinical practice.

A gap between promise and practice

Over the past decade, surgical robotics has experienced significant progress. These technologies offer greater precision, reduced complications and much less fatigue for doctors. We have seen from the first hand how robotic systems can reduce the risk of major complications such as heart perforation while considerably lowering exposure to radiation for patients and care teams.

And yet, more than 99% of the cardiac removal procedures for arrhythmias are always carried out manually. This despite convincing evidence that robotic navigation can offer higher stability, allow more coherent lesions training and offer ergonomic advantages to operators.

Systemic barriers to adoption

Historically, high barriers at the entrance have slowed down the integration of robotics into electrophysiology. Hospitals were faced with long installation deadlines, expensive infrastructure revisions and the challenge of recycling specialized staff. Even for institutions excited by potential, operational friction often made the way to follow.

Fortunately, much of this has changed. Modern systems are easier to install, better integrated into existing workflows and more intuitive to use. The learning curve has shrunk, but obsolete perceptions persist. Decision -makers often assume that robotic platforms are costly, disturbing or too specialized – even when reality has changed.

The hidden cost of the delay

When the adoption is in stands, patients suffer. Manual removal procedures often involve longer fluoroscopy times, leading to higher cumulative radiation doses. Doctors are also faced with avoidable professional risks. Hospitals can lack opportunities to improve results, rationalize care and stand out on a crowded market.

These hidden costs are less visible than capital expenses but just as substantial.

The opportunity to come

We stand at an inflection point. As robotic systems become more accessible and health systems become familiar with their value, the balance between innovation and adoption begins to give a tip. But to fully achieve the advantages of this technology, we need more than simple capable tools. We need institutional resolution to question obsolete hypotheses and align the full potential of innovation with clinical operations.

Robotics have already revolutionized areas such as orthopedics and laparoscopic surgery. Endovascular treatments deserve the same jump forward. Technology exists. The evidence is strong. The challenge is now adoption.

The innovation adoption difference commission will require a partnership between industry, clinicians and the leadership of the health system, but the benefits of patient care make it a priority that deserves to be prosecuted.

Photo: Phonlamaphoto, Getty Images

This message appears through the Medcity influencers program. Anyone can publish their point of view on business and innovation in health care on Medcity News through Medcity influencers. Click here to find out how.