Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 1310–1316 | Cite as

Public perceptions on robotic surgery, hospitals with robots, and surgeons that use them

  • Joshua A. BoysEmail author
  • Evan T. Alicuben
  • Michael J. DeMeester
  • Stephanie G. Worrell
  • Daniel S. Oh
  • Jeffrey A. Hagen
  • Steven R. DeMeester



The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RS) has rapidly increased, but public perceptions about RS are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to gain insight into public perceptions about RS, hospitals that have robots, and surgeons that use them.


A Web-based survey was distributed worldwide. Surveys were collected from July to September 2014, and those with 50 % or greater completion were used for analysis.


There were 789 surveys, and 747 (95 %) were used for analysis. The mean age of respondents was 38.5 years. Most (94 %) were from the USA. Over half (53 %) had a background in health care, and 13 % were physicians. The majority of respondents (86 %) had previously heard of RS, but almost 25 % indicated that RS was like open, laser, or scarless surgery. Over 20 % of respondents indicated that the robot had some degree of autonomy during surgery. Most respondents (72 %) indicated that RS was safer, faster, and less painful or offered better results, but when asked if they would choose to have RS, 55 % would prefer to have conventional minimally invasive surgery. Hospitals with a robot were thought to be better hospitals by 53 % of the respondents. Fewer physicians perceived advantages to RS (30 % physicians vs 78 % non-physicians p < 0.001), and fewer physicians would prefer RS if they needed surgery (30 vs 49 % p = 0.001). One-half of respondents would prefer remote RS by a renowned expert they had never met over having RS by a local non-expert surgeon.


Most respondents perceived benefits to RS, but still preferred conventional minimally invasive surgery if necessary. Misperceptions about the robot indicate a need for patient education prior to RS. Interest by 50 % of respondents in remote surgery might allow expert surgeons to do complex procedures without necessitating regionalization of care. Issues identified in this survey merit further exploration.


Robotic surgery Robot-assisted surgery Survey Public Perception 


Compliance with Ethical Standards


Michael DeMeester and Drs. Boys, Alicuben, Worrell, and Steven DeMeester have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Hagen is a proctor for Intuitive, but has no other financial relationship.

Supplementary material

464_2015_4368_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. 1.
    Intuitive Surgery Inc. (2013) The da Vinci surgery experience. 10–11. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1994-5
  2. 2.
    Lee N (2014) Robotic surgery: Where are we now? Lancet 384(9952):1417. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61851-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M et al (2013) Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63(4):606–614. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lönnerfors C, Reynisson P, Persson J (2015) A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(1):78–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shibata J, Ishihara S, Tada N et al (2015) Surgical stress response after colorectal resection: a comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Tech Coloproctol. doi: 10.1007/s10151-014-1263-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morino M, Benincà G, Giraudo G, Del Genio GM, Rebecchi F, Garrone C (2004) Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 18(12):1742–1746. doi: 10.1007/s00464-004-9046-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flores RM, Alam N (2008) Video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy (VATS), open thoracotomy, and the robot for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 85(2):S710–S715. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.09.055 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones A, Sethia K (2010) Robotic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92(1):5–6. doi: 10.1308/003588410X12518836439362 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barbash G, Glied S (2010) New technology and health care costs-the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1415160 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilbert C, Kechris D, Marchese A, Pelletier E. (2010) An interactive qualifying project submitted to the faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
  11. 11.
    Kaushik D, High R, Clark CJ, LaGrange CA (2010) Malfunction of the Da Vinci robotic system during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an international survey. J Endourol 24(4):571–575. doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0489 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA et al (2007) Da Vinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single three-arm robot unit of more than 700 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 21(11):1341–1344. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0455 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keefe K, Fuchs C. (2014) Annual research conference of the Association For Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM), Albuquerque, NM, 6–8 Nov 2014.
  14. 14.
    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(6):48–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1945-1474.2011.00148.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua A. Boys
    • 1
    Email author
  • Evan T. Alicuben
    • 1
  • Michael J. DeMeester
    • 1
  • Stephanie G. Worrell
    • 1
  • Daniel S. Oh
    • 1
  • Jeffrey A. Hagen
    • 1
  • Steven R. DeMeester
    • 1
  1. 1.Keck School of MedicineThe University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations