Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 493–499 | Cite as

Patient satisfaction with robotic surgery

  • Emma Long
  • Fiona Kew
Original Article

Abstract

This study is a service evaluation of the robotic-assisted surgery service within the Gynaecology Oncology department at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals. The aim is not only to evaluate and improve this new service within the department, but also to add to the available literature that reviews patient satisfaction with robotic-assisted surgery. An anonymous questionnaire was developed with questions taken from the NHS User Experience Survey Question Bank and additional questions in the same format specific to robotic-assisted surgery. This was posted to the first 140 patients to have undergone robotic-assisted surgery within Gynae Oncology at STH. One hundred completed questionnaires were returned. Over 90% of patients were pleased with the care that they received pre-operatively and felt that they have enough input into the decisions made about treatment. Half of patients (51%) reported having pain post-procedure, with a quarter of these patients experiencing severe pain. The majority of patients (72%) felt that their length of stay in hospital was of the right duration. Almost all patients (99%) were pleased with the overall care that they received and 91% would recommend robotic-assisted surgery as a modality. Patients are very satisfied with the care that they receive when undergoing robotic-assisted surgery within Gynae Oncology at our center and the majority of patients would recommend robotic-assisted surgery as a modality.

Keywords

Patient satisfaction Robotic surgery Gynaecology oncology 

Notes

Funding

There was no funding for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Both authors E. Long and F. Kew declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Schreuder H, Verheijen R (2009) Robotic surgery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 116:198–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gaia G, Holloway RW, Santoro L, Ahmad S, Di Silverio E, Spinillo A (2010) Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 116:1422–1431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ng Ada TL, Tam PC (2014) Current status of robotic-assisted surgery. Hong Kong Med J 20:241–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oehler MK (2009) Robotic-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 49(2):124–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Backes FJ, ElNaggar AC, Farrell MR, Brudie LA, Ahmad S, Salani R, Cohn DE, Holloway RW, Fowler JM, O’Malley DM (2016) Perioperative outcomes for laparotomy compared to robotic surgical staging of endometrial cancer in the elderly: a retrospective cohort. Int J Gynaecol Cancer 26:1717–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zakhari A, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Spence AR, Gotlieb WH, Abenhaim HA (2016) Hysterectomy for uterine cancer in the elderly: a comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted techniques. Int J Gynaecol Cancer 26:1222–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, Tomás EI, Laurila M, Luukkaala TH, Mäenpää JU (2016) Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 215:588.e1–588.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richard G, Arms III, Sun CC, Burzawa JK, Fleming ND, Nick AM, Rallapalli V, Westin SN, Meyer LA, Ramirez PT, Soliman PT (2015) Improvement in quality of life after robotic surgery results in patient satisfaction. Gynaecol Oncol 138(3):727–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Department of Health, UK (2012) Greater voice for patients—the health and social care bill. Factsheet B3Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Health (2010) Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS (Coalition Government White Paper). s.l.: Department of HealthGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Health (2008) High quality care for all—NHS next stage review final report. s.l.: Department of HealthGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Department of Health (2014) NHS outcomes framework 2015/16. s.l.: Department of HealthGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mulley A, Trimble C, Elwyn G (2012) Patients’ preferences matter. s.l.: The King’s FundGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Quality-Health, NHS England (2014) National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. s.l.: NHS EnglandGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    El Douaihy Youssef et al (2011) A cohort study investigating patient expectations and satisfaction outcomes in men undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 43(2):405–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hussain A et al (2014) The use of robotics in surgery: a review. Int J Clin Pract 68(11):1376–1382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K et al (2011) Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and economic analyses. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynaecology Oncology, Obstetrics and GynaecologySheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSheffieldUK
  2. 2.SheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations