contacting an equal number of surgeons from each state. Surgeon contact information was obtained from Intuitive Surgical’s website.viii Using the Intuitive website’s “locate a surgeon” feature , surgeons were selected by state. All of the PERCEPTIONS OF SURGICAL ROBOTICS - Gilbert, Kechris, Marchese, Pelletier - 16 - surgeons on Intuitive’s website are qualified for and have performed RAS, proving them eligible to participate in the practitioner survey. A quota of 15 per state was filled by selecting the first 15 surgeons listed per state. There is no specific order to how surgeons are listed on the surgeon-finder website. After being identified, surgeons were subsequently sent an email with a link to the online practitioner survey. Surgeons were asked to forward the survey to anyone else directly involved in their robotassisted operating room. This includes surgeons, attendings, residents, fellows, and nurses. The team expected a return rate of approximately five percent. We received 29 practitioner responses, yielding a return rate of just under four percent. The survey and its responses were hosted and stored on www.surveymonkey.com. ix These online surveys are inherently anonymous, as only the IP address of the participant are visible. General Population Survey There were no eligibility requirements for the general population.However,two questions were added that served as filters for this survey. For the general population, the team pursued two simultaneousstrategies; surveys were both mailed out in hard copy to potential survey participants as well as posted online.The initial mailing group was a pilot group comprised offifty addresses. The addresses were selected from random listings in the phonebook, but only one address was selected per state. For each phonebook, we used a random number generator to select the page of the phonebook, and then we used a second random number generator to select which listing on that page to use. This pilot was sent out to estimate an expected return rate. The team initially estimated a return rate of ten percent. To ensure that candidates’participation were not influenced by monetary reasons, a prestamped pre-addressed return envelope was enclosed. From our pilot group of fifty, we received five letters back, confirming our return rate of approximatelyten percent and our decision to recruit further survey participants through mailings. PERCEPTIONS OF SURGICAL ROBOTICS - Gilbert, Kechris, Marchese, Pelletier - 17 - Using this ten percent return rate as an approximation, a sample size and corresponding mailing size were formulated. To achieve the desired sample size of greater than eighty returned surveys, a mailing size of one-thousand was selected. The research team searched for a means of generating a random address list of residential households across the country. Using www.leadsplease.com we issued one-thousand letters with business-reply envelopes of which sixty-three were returned (See Appendix A.1). In addition to distributing general population surveys via mail, invitations to take the survey were posted on multiple websites and forums (listed in Appendix B). The survey, identical in nature to the mailed survey, was hosted on www.surveymonkey.com. These websites provided the research group with thirty-two more responses. Of the online and mailed surveys distributed, ninety-five were returned. As with the practitioner survey, the online responses for the general population were anonymous. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 17. Data was manually transferred from the returned hard copy surveys to the statistical spreadsheet. Online surveys were downloaded from the hosting website and transferred into SPSS. Relationships between variables were tested with either the Tukey or Bonferroni Post-hoc tests for multiple comparisons. Statistically significant relationships were those with a p-valueof α≤ 0.05. Perhaps for future studies a p-value of 0.01 would be more desirable, but due to such a small sample size with the current research, obtaining results with a certainty of 95% was more realistic. Survey questions were coded according to the following scheme: blank = illegitimate response, 0 = unanswered, 1 through n = scale options based on physical location left to right. Coded surveys are available in appendix A. PERCEPTIONS OF SURGICAL ROBOTICS - Gilbert, Kechris, Marchese, Pelletier - 18 - Results We rejected the null hypothesis through comparison of data collected on questions that represented opinions and views regarding each population’s perception of RAS. Specific results are shown below. Acceptance of RAS vs. Level of Comfort The general population’s and patient population’s acceptance of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) were measured in the survey with two different questions. For the patient population, this was measured by the question asking how willing they were to have RAS before their operation. For the general population, acceptance was measured by the question asking whether or not they would choose RAS over traditional surgery if both types were an option. Available responses to the acceptance question for the general population were 1 for yes, and 2 for no. For the patient population, responses ranged from 1 = unwilling to 5 = eager. For both population types, comfort was