Abstract
Background
It appears that a discrepancy exists between the perception of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the current clinical evidence regarding robotic-assisted surgery among patients, healthcare providers, and hospital administrators. The purpose of this study was to assess whether or not such a discrepancy exists.
Methods
We administered survey questionnaires via face-to-face interviews with surgical patients (n = 101), healthcare providers (n = 58), and senior members of hospital administration (n = 6) at a community hospital that performs robotic surgery. The respondents were asked about their perception regarding the infection rate, operative time, operative blood loss, incision size, cost, length of hospital stay (LOS), risk of complications, precision and accuracy, tactile sensation, and technique of robotic-assisted surgery as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery. We then performed a comprehensive literature review to assess whether or not these perceptions could be corroborated with clinical evidence.
Results
The majority of survey respondents perceived RAS as modality to decrease infection rate, increase operative time, decrease operative blood loss, smaller incision size, a shorter LOS, and a lower risk of complications, while increasing the cost. Respondents also believed that robotic surgery provides greater precision, accuracy, and tactile sensation, while improving intra-operative access to organs. A comprehensive literature review found little-to-no clinical evidence that supported the respondent’s favorable perceptions of robotic surgery except for the increased costs, and precision and accuracy of the robotic-assisted technique.
Conclusions
There is a discrepancy between the perceptions of robotic surgery and the clinical evidence among patients, healthcare providers, and hospital administrators surveyed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Heemskerk J, Bouvy N, Baeten C (2014) The end of robotic-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1388–1398
Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19:1212–1215
Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21
Herron DM, Marohn M (2008) The SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:313–325
Koughnett J, Jayaraman S, Eagleson R (2009) Are there advantages to robotic-assisted surgery over laparoscopy from the surgeon’s perspective? J Robot Surg 3:79–82
van der Schatte Olivier RH, van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1365–1371
Bultitude M, Murphy D, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Khan MS, Wang Q, Dasgupta P (2008) Patient perception of robotic urology. Br J Urol 103:285–288
Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, Dulabon LM, Patel MN, Lipkin M, Wang AJ, Stifelman MD (2009) Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 182:866–873
Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG, Kawachi MH, Ramin SA, Lau C, Crocitto LE (2006) Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 75:541–546
Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM, Otto BJ, Portnoff A, Ehrlich JR, Schwartz MJ, Wang GJ, Scherr DS (2010) A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol 57:274–281
Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshardi-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P (2012) Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:1–15
Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC (2012) Use, costs, and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urologic surgery. Eur Urol 187:1392–1398
Packiam V, Bartlett DL, Tohme S, Reddy S, Marsh JW, Geller DA, Tsung A (2012) Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12:2233–2238
Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gyencol 17:730–738
Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013
Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Gypen B, Van Tu T, Vaneerdeweg W (2008) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc 22:1690–1696
Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gyencol 17:730–738
Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698
Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, Goldman N, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:784–791
Orady M, Hrynewych A, Nawfal AK, Wegienka G (2012) Comparison of robotic-assisted hysterectomy to other minimally invasive approaches. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 16(4):542
Khan MS, Elhage O, Challacombe B, Rimington P, Murphy D, Dasgupta P (2011) Analysis of early complications of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy using a standardized reporting system. Urology 77(2):357–362
Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 20(3):312–321
Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in Laparoscopic Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11:415–419
Masson-Lecomte A, Yates DR, Hupertan V, Haertig A, Chartier-Kastler E, Marc-Olivier B, Vaessen C, Roupret M (2013) A prospective comparison of the pathologic and surgical outcomes obtained after elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma by open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol 31(6):924–929
Aboumarkzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, Haber GP, Chlosta PL, Somani BK, Kaouk JH (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 62:1023–1033
Panumatrassamee K, Autorino R, Laydner H, Hillyer S, Khalifeh A, Kassab A, Stein RJ, Haber GP, Kaouk JH (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumor in a solitary kidney: a single institution comparative analysis. Int J Urol 20:484–491
Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robotic-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704
Schiavone MB, Kuo EC, Naumann RW, Burke WM, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecological surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:174.e1–174.e7
Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Choueiri TK, Choi WW, Lei Y, Hoffman KE, Hu JC (2011) Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:1517–1524
Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, Goldman N, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:784–791
Weissman JS, Zinner M (2013) Comparative effectiveness research on robotic surgery. JAMA 309:721–722
Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424
Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:604–611
Corcione F, Esposito C, Curccurullo D, Settembre A, Miranda N, Amato F, Pirozzi F, Caiazzo P (2005) Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc 19:117–119
van der Meijden OA, Schijven MP (2009) The Value of Haptic Feedback in Conventional and Robot-Assisted Minimal Invasive Surgery and Virtual Reality Training: a Current Review. Surg Endosc 23:1180–1190
Hagen ME, Meehan JJ, Inan I, Morel P (2008) Visual cues act as a substitute for haptic feedback in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:1505–1508
Jin LX, Ibrahim AM, Newman NA, Makarov DV, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA (2011) Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual 33:48–52
Schiavone MB, Kuo EC, Naumann RW, Burke WM, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecological surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:174.e1–174.e7
Herron DM, Lantis JC, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg SD (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display. A quantitative evaluation of advanced laparoscopic viewing techniques. Surg Endosc 13(8):751–755
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Drs. Ahmad, Carleton, and Agarwala have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Zoha Ahmad has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ahmad, A., Ahmad, Z.F., Carleton, J.D. et al. Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence. Surg Endosc 31, 255–263 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4966-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4966-y