Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence.

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.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective, single-center study of early perioperative outcomes at a community hospital.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the operative and early perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed in a community hospital setting. METHODS: The study was a chart review and analysis of the early perioperative outcomes of a total of 345 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed by a single surgeon in a community hospital setting from January 2011 to October 2014. Of these, 173 procedures were performed laparoscopically and 172 were performed with robotic assistance utilizing the daVinci(®) surgical platform. Factors such as baseline patient characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversions to open procedure, complication rates, adverse events, length of stay (LOS), and return to the operating room for the two groups were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Student's t test with unequal variances was used for statistical analysis, and a p value <0.05 was used for significance. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in complication rates, EBL, or LOS between the two groups. There was a significant difference between the total operative times (135.30 ± 37.60 min for the laparoscopic procedure versus 154.84 ± 38.44 min for the robotic procedure, p < 0.05). There were no adverse intraoperative events, conversions to open procedures, leaks, strictures, returns to the operating room within 30 days, or mortalities in either group. CONCLUSION: Our study, which is the first of its kind to analyze the operative and early perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures in the US community hospital setting, indicates that both are comparable in terms of safety, efficacy, and operative and early perioperative outcomes.