Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence

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. 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. 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. There is a discrepancy between the perceptions of robotic surgery and the clinical evidence among patients, healthcare providers, and hospital administrators surveyed.