Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Herron DM, Marohn M (2008) The SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:313–325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in Laparoscopic Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11:415–419

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robotic-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weissman JS, Zinner M (2013) Comparative effectiveness research on robotic surgery. JAMA 309:721–722

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General and Bariatric Surgery, John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, Port Jefferson, NY, USA

    Arif Ahmad, Zoha F. Ahmad, Jared D. Carleton & Ashish Agarwala

  2. Division of General and Bariatric Surgery, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    Arif Ahmad & Ashish Agarwala

  3. St. Charles Hospital, Port Jefferson, NY, USA

    Arif Ahmad

Authors
  1. Arif Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zoha F. Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jared D. Carleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ashish Agarwala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arif Ahmad.

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.

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

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4966-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation