ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and propensity score matched studies.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- ROBOT-ASSISTED VITREORETINAL SURGERY IMPROVES SURGICAL ACCURACY COMPARED WITH MANUAL SURGERY: A Randomized Trial in a Simulated Setting.Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2020Trial
- Article
- Patient expectations and concerns regarding robotic thyroidectomy in china: a cross-sectional study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Right Colectomy with Complete Mesocolic Excision and Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A Monocentric, Single-Surgeon Comparison of Dexter, DaVinci and Laparoscopic Approaches.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Public awareness and perception of robotic-assisted surgery: a cross-sectional analysis of sociodemographic influences.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Review
- [Robotic rectal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Perceptions of theatre team members to robotic assisted surgery and the aid of technology in colorectal surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Impact of visceral fat area on short-term outcomes in robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Impaired robotic surgical visualization: archaic issues in a modern operating room.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- [Robot-assisted visceral surgery in Germany : Analysis of the current status and trends of the last 5 years using data from the StuDoQ|Robotics registry].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Patient experiences of left-sided colorectal resection by robotic, conventional laparoscopic and open approaches: a qualitative study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- The use of advanced robotic simulation labs to advance and assess senior resident robotic skills and operating room leadership competency: a pilot study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision: a retrospective multicenter study with propensity score matching.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Surgeon perception of factors affecting the efficiency of conventional and robotic laparoscopy: A Pan India study.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Assessing the role of robotic proctectomy in obese patients: a contemporary NSQIP analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Awareness, perception, knowledge, and attitude toward robotic surgery in a general surgical outpatient clinic in Singapore, Asia.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsThere is a discrepancy between the perceptions of robotic surgery and the clinical evidence among patients, healthcare providers, and hospital administrators surveyed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.