Saturday, November 8, 2014: 1:45 PM-3:15 PM
Estancia (Convention Center)
*Names in bold indicate Presenter
Abstract: Since its approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, robotic surgery
has gained a strong foothold as a promising innovation in surgical health procedures. Advocates of the use of such surgical methods boast various benefits in comparison to traditional laparoscopic surgery, including decreased pain, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stays and recovery time. However, these promised benefits have not always been experienced by all who have received the procedures, as some studies have found that these claims to be ungrounded, reporting no significant differences in the outcomes between traditional and robotic procedures. Furthermore, opponents of the use of robotic surgery suspect that this relatively new surgical method can induce complications and side effects in patients, including sepsis, peritonitis, bowel injuries and even death. While many previous analyses focus on the efficacy of the claims made by each side of the debate pertaining to the effectiveness of robotic surgical procedures, there has been little investigation into public perceptions on the utility of this surgical method itself and the root cause of the formation of such perceptions, all of which are essential to understand the general public’s preferences toward the use of robotic surgery (over the alternative) and their opinions on the design of related government policies. Based upon a recent anonymous Internet survey of 575 individuals who are affiliated with two major Arkansas higher education institutions, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and University of Arkansas Medical Sciences at Little Rock, this paper attempts a preliminary analysis of how individuals assess the benefits and risks associated with the implementation of robotic surgery.
Panel Chair: Jeryl Mumpower, Texas A&M University