Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on patient perceptions and requirements during the perioperative period of robotic surgery

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research undertakes a comprehensive evaluation and amalgamation of patient experiences and requirements during the perioperative period of robot-assisted surgery (RS), with the goal of enriching clinical practice with patient-centered insights. A meta-synthesis was performed and reported according to the preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research statement. A rigorous literature search was conducted across multiple Chinese and English databases, namely PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP Information. This study incorporated ten qualitative studies, the outcomes were classified into three overarching themes: personalized patient requirements related to RS; the psychological and physiological experiences of patients; and the divergent perceptions of male and female patients regarding RS. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on patient comprehension of RS, augmenting focus on patient psychological experiences, recognizing unique patient needs at various stages of RS, and providing patients with specialized knowledge and technical support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  1. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1006602

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Huang C, Huang RX, Qiu ZJ (2011) Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: new minimally invasive surgery come of age. World J Gastroenterol 17(39):4382–4388. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i39.4382

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lai EC, Tang CN, Li MK (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy: technique and surgical outcomes. Int J Surg 10(1):11–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Irani M, Prabakar C, Nematian S, Julka N, Bhatt D, Bral P (2016) Patient perceptions of open, laparoscopic, and robotic gynecological surgeries. Biomed Res Int 2016:4284093. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4284093

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Thillou D, Robin H, Ricolleau C, Benali NA, Forgues A, Emeriau D et al (2023) Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy with the dexter robotic system: initial experience and insights into on-demand robotics. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.05.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, Choudhury SA, Oleynikov D (2018) Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc 32:1636–1655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98(2):125–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/145749690909800208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J (2012) Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 12:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Yan H, Peng J (2020) Quality assessment of our qualitative research system evaluation and meta-integrated papers. Chin Nurs Manag 20(04):490–495

    Google Scholar 

  10. Smith A, Rincones O, Sidhom M, Mancuso P, Wong K, Berry M et al (2019) Robot or radiation? A qualitative study of the decision support needs of men with localised prostate cancer choosing between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy treatment. Patient Educ Couns 102(7):1364–1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.02.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McDermott H, Choudhury N, Lewin-Runacres M, Aemn I, Moss E (2020) Gender differences in understanding and acceptance of robot-assisted surgery. J Robot Surg 14(1):227–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00960-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herling SF, Palle C, Moeller AM, Thomsen T (2016) The experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for women treated for early-stage endometrial cancer: a qualitative study. Cancer Nurs 39(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0000000000000260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harrop E, Kelly J, Griffiths G, Casbard A, Nelson A (2016) Why do patients decline surgical trials? Findings from a qualitative interview study embedded in the Cancer Research UK BOLERO trial (Bladder cancer: Open versus Lapararoscopic or RObotic cystectomy). Trials 17:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1173-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu Q, Pei H, Ran X, Chen X, Jiang L, Wei A et al (2023) Qualitative study on the information needs of patients undergoing da Vinci robotic surgery. Clin Nurs Res 32(2):433–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/10547738221103337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ting P, Song Z, Zhu Q, Chen P, Wang J (2016) A qualitative study of the perioperative psychological experience of patients undergoing da Vinci robotic surgery. Chin J Mod Nurs 22(3):346–349

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wang C, Song Z, Ding P (2015) A qualitative study of the psychological experience of patients undergoing da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery. J Clin Nurs 14(06):19–21

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gao D, Cao Y, Guo M (2016) A qualitative study of the perioperative psychological experience of patients undergoing da Vinci robot-assisted radical cervical cancer surgery. J Qilu Nurs 22(10):20–22

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liu X, Wei X (2008) A qualitative study of the psychological experience of patients undergoing fully robotic cardiac surgery. Nurs J Chin Peoples Liber Army 29(03):7–9+44

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wang J, Chen R, Hu H, Gao J (2023) A qualitative study of the psychological experience of patients undergoing da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Chin J Robot Surg 4(03):233–239

    Google Scholar 

  20. Khachfe HH, Habib JR, Al Harthi S, Suhool A, Hallal AH et al (2022) Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique. J Robot Surg 16(3):483–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01289-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Birch E, van Bruwaene S, Everaerts W, Schubach K, Bush M, Krishnasamy M et al (2016) Developing and evaluating robocare; an innovative, nurse-led robotic prostatectomy care pathway. Eur J Oncol Nurs 21:120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2016.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kunneman M, Montori VM, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Hess EP (2016) What is shared decision making? (And what it is not). Acad Emerg Med 23(12):1320–1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Noseworthy PA, Branda ME, Kunneman M, Hargraves IG, Sivly AL, Brito JP et al (2022) Effect of shared decision-making for stroke prevention on treatment adherence and safety outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Heart Assoc 11(2):e023048. https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.121.023048

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Milky G, Thomas J 3rd (2020) Shared decision making, satisfaction with care and medication adherence among patients with diabetes. Patient Educ Couns 103(3):661–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Faiman B, Tariman JD (2019) Shared decision making: improving patient outcomes by understanding the benefits of and barriers to effective communication. Clin J Oncol Nurs 23(5):540–542. https://doi.org/10.1188/19.Cjon.540-542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Inzlicht M, Werner KM, Briskin JL, Roberts BW (2021) Integrating models of self-regulation. Annu Rev Psychol 72:319–345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-061020-105721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mariwah S, Machistey Abane A, Asiedu Owusu S, Kasim A, Robson E, Castelli M et al (2022) Formalising ‘informal’ mHealth in Ghana: opportunities and challenges for universal health coverage (UHC). Glob Public Health 17(5):768–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2021.1874467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by 2020 Xianyang Science and Technology Research and Development Program (No. 2020k02-114); 2019 Disciplinary Innovation Team of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine (No. 2019-PY03); 2018 Natural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi Province (No. 2018JM7132); in 2021, a school-level scientific research project of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine was approved (No. 2021CX14); 2021 Postgraduate Innovative Practical Ability Improvement Project (No. ZG008); 2022 Advantages and Interdiscipline Support Plan of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine (No. 2022XKZC05); and 2021 Postgraduate Education Teaching Reform and Innovation Project (No. JGCX010).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Century Avenue, Chenyangzhai, Qindu District, Xianyang, 712046, Shaanxi, China

    Shuang Wu, Chunzhi Yang, Liu He, Zhixuan Hu & Jie Yao

Authors
  1. Shuang Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chunzhi Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liu He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhixuan Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jie Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: SW; methodology: SW; formal analysis and investigation: CY; writing—original draft preparation: ZH; writing—review and editing: LH; funding acquisition: SW; resources: SW; supervision: SW; and all the authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie Yao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, S., Yang, C., He, L. et al. Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on patient perceptions and requirements during the perioperative period of robotic surgery. J Robotic Surg 18, 44 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01791-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01791-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation