Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2018

01-09-2018 | Original Article

Patient satisfaction with robotic surgery

Authors: Emma Long, Fiona Kew

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schreuder H, Verheijen R (2009) Robotic surgery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 116:198–213CrossRef Schreuder H, Verheijen R (2009) Robotic surgery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 116:198–213CrossRef
2.
go back to reference 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 116:1422–1431CrossRefPubMed 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 116:1422–1431CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Ng Ada TL, Tam PC (2014) Current status of robotic-assisted surgery. Hong Kong Med J 20:241–251PubMed Ng Ada TL, Tam PC (2014) Current status of robotic-assisted surgery. Hong Kong Med J 20:241–251PubMed
4.
go back to reference Oehler MK (2009) Robotic-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 49(2):124–129CrossRefPubMed Oehler MK (2009) Robotic-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 49(2):124–129CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference 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 26:1717–1721CrossRef 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 26:1717–1721CrossRef
6.
go back to reference 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 26:1222–1227CrossRef 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 26:1222–1227CrossRef
7.
go back to reference 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.e7CrossRef 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.e7CrossRef
8.
go back to reference 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):727–730CrossRef 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):727–730CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Department of Health, UK (2012) Greater voice for patients—the health and social care bill. Factsheet B3 Department of Health, UK (2012) Greater voice for patients—the health and social care bill. Factsheet B3
10.
go back to reference Department of Health (2010) Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS (Coalition Government White Paper). s.l.: Department of Health Department of Health (2010) Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS (Coalition Government White Paper). s.l.: Department of Health
11.
go back to reference Department of Health (2008) High quality care for all—NHS next stage review final report. s.l.: Department of Health Department of Health (2008) High quality care for all—NHS next stage review final report. s.l.: Department of Health
12.
go back to reference Department of Health (2014) NHS outcomes framework 2015/16. s.l.: Department of Health Department of Health (2014) NHS outcomes framework 2015/16. s.l.: Department of Health
13.
go back to reference Mulley A, Trimble C, Elwyn G (2012) Patients’ preferences matter. s.l.: The King’s Fund Mulley A, Trimble C, Elwyn G (2012) Patients’ preferences matter. s.l.: The King’s Fund
15.
go back to reference Quality-Health, NHS England (2014) National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. s.l.: NHS England Quality-Health, NHS England (2014) National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. s.l.: NHS England
16.
go back to reference 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):405–415CrossRefPubMed 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):405–415CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Hussain A et al (2014) The use of robotics in surgery: a review. Int J Clin Pract 68(11):1376–1382CrossRefPubMed Hussain A et al (2014) The use of robotics in surgery: a review. Int J Clin Pract 68(11):1376–1382CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference 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 Health 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 Health
Metadata
Title
Patient satisfaction with robotic surgery
Authors
Emma Long
Fiona Kew
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0772-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2018 Go to the issue