Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Intuitive Surgery Inc. (2013) The da Vinci surgery experience. 10–11. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1994-5

  2. Lee N (2014) Robotic surgery: Where are we now? Lancet 384(9952):1417. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61851-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones A, Sethia K (2010) Robotic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92(1):5–6. doi:10.1308/003588410X12518836439362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gilbert C, Kechris D, Marchese A, Pelletier E. (2010) An interactive qualifying project submitted to the faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042710-145052/unrestricted/PERCEPTIONS_OF_SURGICAL_ROBOTICS.pdf

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://appam.confex.com/appam/2014/webprogram/Paper10884.html

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Keck School of Medicine, The University of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo St, Suite 514, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Joshua A. Boys, Evan T. Alicuben, Michael J. DeMeester, Stephanie G. Worrell, Daniel S. Oh, Jeffrey A. Hagen & Steven R. DeMeester

Authors
  1. Joshua A. Boys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evan T. Alicuben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. DeMeester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephanie G. Worrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel S. Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeffrey A. Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steven R. DeMeester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua A. Boys.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

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.

Additional information

Presented at the SAGES 2015 Annual Meeting, April 15–18, 2015, Nashville, Tennessee.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boys, J.A., Alicuben, E.T., DeMeester, M.J. et al. Public perceptions on robotic surgery, hospitals with robots, and surgeons that use them. Surg Endosc 30, 1310–1316 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4368-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4368-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation