Abstract
The implementation of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has brought in a change to the perception and roles of theatre staff, as well as the dynamics of the operative environment and team. This study aims to identify and describe current perceptions of theatre staff in the context of RAS. 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted in a tertiary level university hospital, where RAS is utilised in selected elective settings. Interviews were conducted by an experienced research nurse to staff of the colorectal department operating theatre (nursing, surgical and anaesthetics) with some experience in operating within open, laparoscopic and RAS surgical settings. Thematic analysis on all interviews was performed, with formation of preliminary themes. Respondents all discussed advantages of all modes of operating. All respondents appreciated the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, in the reduced physiological insult to patients. However, interviewees remarked on the current perceived limitations of RAS in terms of logistics. Some voiced apprehension and anxieties about the safety if an operation needs to be converted to open. An overarching theme with participants of all levels and backgrounds was the ‘Teamwork’ and the concept of the [robotic] team. The physical differences of RAS changes the traditional methods of communication, with the loss of face-to-face contact and the physical ‘separation’ of the surgeon from the rest of the operating team impacting theatre dynamics. It is vital to understand the staff cultures, concerns and perception to the use of this relatively new technology in colorectal surgery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [SK], upon reasonable request.
References
Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3(1):e1918911
Irvine M, Patil V (2009) Anaesthesia for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Continu Educ Anaesthesia Crit Care Pain 9(4):125–129
Gill A, Randell R (2016) Robotic surgery and its impact on teamwork in the operating theatre. J Perioper Pract 26(3):42–45
McBride KE, Steffens D, Duncan K, Bannon PG, Solomon MJ (2019) Knowledge and attitudes of theatre staff prior to the implementation of robotic-assisted surgery in the public sector. PLoS One 14(3):e0213840
Schuessler Z, Scott Stiles A, Mancuso P (2020) Perceptions and experiences of perioperative nurses and nurse anaesthetists in robotic-assisted surgery. J Clin Nurs 29(1–2):60–74
Luck ES, Gillespie BM (2017) Technological advancements in the OR: Do we need to redefine intraoperative nursing roles? AORN J 106(4):280–282
Kang MJ, De Gagne JC, Kang HS (2016) Perioperative Nurses’ work experience with robotic surgery: a focus group study. Comput Inform Nurs 34(4):152–158
Almeras C, Almeras C (2019) Operating room communication in robotic surgery: place, modalities and evolution of a safe system of interaction. J Visc Surg 156(5):397–403
El-Hamamsy D, Walton TJ, Griffiths TRL, Anderson ES, Tincello DG (2020) Surgeon-team separation in robotic theaters: a qualitative observational and interview study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 26(2):86–91
Zemmar A, Lozano AM, Nelson BJ (2020) The rise of robots in surgical environments during COVID-19. Nat Mach Intell 2(10):566–572
Huettner F, Dynda D, Ryan M, Doubet J, Crawford DL (2010) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery; a useful tool in resident training–the Peoria experience, 2002–2009. Int J Med Robot 6(4):386–393
Toro JP, Lin E, Patel AD (2015) Review of robotics in foregut and bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc 29(1):1–8
Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Pearman A, Greenhalgh J, Long A et al (2016) Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams. Cogn Tech Work 18(2):423–437
Alasari S, Min BS (2012) Robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. ISRN Surg 2012:293894
Zhao B, Lam J, Hollandsworth HM, Lee AM, Lopez NE, Abbadessa B et al (2020) General surgery training in the era of robotic surgery: a qualitative analysis of perceptions from resident and attending surgeons. Surg Endosc 34(4):1712–1721
Boys JA, Alicuben ET, DeMeester MJ, Worrell SG, Oh DS, Hagen JA et al (2016) Public perceptions on robotic surgery, hospitals with robots, and surgeons that use them. Surg Endosc 30(4):1310–1316
Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363
Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH (2012) A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 19(8):2485–2493
Sudan R, Desai SS (2012) Emergency and weekend robotic surgery are feasible. J Robotic Surg 6(3):263–266
de’Angelis N, Khan J, Marchegiani F, Bianchi G, Aisoni F, Alberti D et al (2022) Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper. World J Emerg Surg 17(1):4
Anderson M, Lynn P, Aydinli HH, Schwartzberg D, Bernstein M, Grucela A (2020) Early experience with urgent robotic subtotal colectomy for severe acute ulcerative colitis has comparable perioperative outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. J Robotic Surg 14(2):249–253
Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Greenhalgh J, Hindmarsh J, Pearman A et al (2019) Factors supporting and constraining the implementation of robot-assisted surgery: a realist interview study. BMJ Open 9(6):e028635
Baik SH (2008) Robotic colorectal surgery. Yonsei Med J 49(6):891–896
Fung AKY, Aly EH (2013) Robotic colonic surgery: Is it advisable to commence a new learning curve? Dis Colon Rectum 56(6):786–796
Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc 26(1):1–11
Becchini L, Annecchiarico M, Marino MD, Moraldi L, Perna F, Coratti A (2015) Gastrointestinal robotic surgery: challenges and developments. RSRR 30(2):11–27
Fleming CA, Westby D, Ullah MF, Mohan HM, Sehgal R, Bolger JC et al (2020) A review of clinical and oncological outcomes following the introduction of the first robotic colorectal surgery programme to a university teaching hospital in Ireland using a dual console training platform. J Robotic Surg 14(6):889–896
Helvind NM, Eriksen JR, Mogensen A, Tas B, Olsen J, Bundgaard M et al (2013) No differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer: a case–control study of 263 patients. Surg Endosc 27(7):2575–2580
Simianu VV, Gaertner WB, Kuntz K, Kwaan MR, Lowry AC, Madoff RD et al (2020) Cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic versus robotic minimally invasive colectomy. Ann Surg 272(2):334–341
Alsowaina KN, Schlachta CM, Alkhamesi NA (2019) Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery. Ann Med Surg 1(45):36–39
Randell R, Honey S, Hindmarsh J, Alvarado N, Greenhalgh J, Pearman A, et al. A realist review of stakeholders’ theories. A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making. NIHR J Library; 2017. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447443/
Ahmad A, Ahmad ZF, Carleton JD, Agarwala A (2017) Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence. Surg Endosc 31(1):255–263
Royal College of Surgeons of England. Future of surgery. London: RCS England; 2018. https://futureofsurgery.rcseng.ac.uk/report/Future%20of%20Surgery%20Report.pdf
Funding
This work was supported by the Intuitive Foundation—Clinical Robotic Research Grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection was performed by Jane McCulloch. Analysis of data was performed by Shreya Kulkarni and Milind Kulkarni. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Shreya Kulkarni and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
This work was supported by the Intuitive Foundation - Clinical Robotic Research Grant awarded to author I.S. We recognise the conflict of interest in the Funding of the Study by Intuitive and the inclusion of Interviewees who were contributors / investigators to the Study, which may introduce an element of bias from one participants responses.
Ethical standard
This study received ethical approval in our institution (Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kulkarni, S., RobOLaP study research group collective., Claydon, O. et al. Perceptions of theatre team members to robotic assisted surgery and the aid of technology in colorectal surgery. J Robotic Surg 18, 198 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01923-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01923-9