measured from the same question, which directly asked their level of comfort with technology. Patient responses were inverted and scaled to match the general and practitioner population responses. For the general population (M1= 1.00 The relationship between variables did not yield any statistically significant results at the α = 0.05 level, although a trend is visible (see Graph 1). For the general population, as comfort levels rise on the x axis, acceptance of RAS seems to also rise. For the patient population, however, the data shows that as comfort with technology rises, acceptance of RAS seems to decrease. PERCEPTIONS OF SURGICAL ROBOTICS - Gilbert, Kechris, Marchese, Pelletier - 19 - Figure 2 - Acceptance of RAS vs. Level of Comfort with Technology: General: How would you categorize your comfort with current technology (i.e. computers, i-pods, cell phones)? Acceptance: Would you choose robotic surgery over traditional surgery if both types were an option? Patient: How would you categorize your comfort with current technology (i.e. computers, i-pods, cell phones)? Acceptance: How willing were you to have robotic assisted surgery before your operation? PERCEPTIONS OF SURGICAL ROBOTICS - Gilbert, Kechris, Marchese, Pelletier - 20 - Acceptance of RAS vs. Perceived Level of Robot Control Collected data was also able to illustrate a relationship between the general and patient population’s acceptance of RAS with their perceived level of robot control. Both the general and patient populations were evaluated on their perception of the robot’s control with the same survey question: What do you think the robot’s involvement is in the control of robot-assisted surgery? The two population’s acceptances of RAS were assessed with the same questions as in the graph measuring their acceptance of RAS versus their level of comfort. 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 the general population (M1= 1.46 SD1 = 0.52 N1 = 13, M2= 1.00 SD2 = 0.00 N2 = 3, M3= 1.41 SD3 = 0.50 N3 = 27, M4= 1.23 SD4 = 0.43 N4 = 31, M5= 1.20 SD5 = 0.45 N5 = 5). For the patient population (M1= 0.00 SD1 = 0.00 N1 = 0, M2= 1.25 SD2 = 0.13 N2 = 9, M3= 1.25 SD3 = 0.14 N3 = 13, M4= 1.30 SD4 = 0.11 N4 = 5, M5= 1.13 SD5 = 0.18 N5 = 2).This data was again not statistically significant at the p = 0.05 level, and did not produce any obvious trends. It appears as though there was no direct correlation with how well-accepted RAS was and perceived level of robot control. PERCEPTIONS OF SURGICAL ROBOTICS - Gilbert, Kechris, Marchese, Pelletier - 21 - Figure 3 - Acceptance of RAS vs. Perceived Level of Robot Control: General: What do you think the robot’s involvement is in the control of robotic assisted surgery? Acceptance: Would you choose robotic surgery over traditional surgery if both types were an option? Patient: What do you think the robot’s involvement is in the control of robotic assisted surgery? Acceptance: How willing were you to have robotic assisted surgery before your operation? PERCEPTIONS OF SURGICAL ROBOTICS - Gilbert, Kechris, Marchese, Pelletier - 22 - Perceived Impact on Patient Recovery Time Results obtained from survey questions that measured each of the three population’s perceived impact of RAS on patient recovery time varied for each population. All combinations between patient and practitioner surveys (p = 0.000), patient and general population surveys (p = 0.037), and practitioner and general surveys (p = 0.000) show statistically significant differences. For Patients M = 2.25, SD = 1.11, N = 28. For Practitioners M = 3.90, SD = 0.85, N = 30. For the general population M = 2.79, SD = 1.00, N = 91. Practitioners seemed to believe more than any other surveyed population that RAS increases recovery time after surgery. The patient population believed that RAS decreases post-op recovery time. The general population seemed to believe that there was little to no impact on patient recovery time, remaining towards the middle of the survey choice selection with a mean answer averaging close to three, representing the perception that RAS has little to no impact on recovery time. Patient Practitioner General 1 = drastically decrease 5= drastically increase Perceived Impact on Patient Recovery Time Figure 4 - Perceived Impact on Patient Recovery Time: How do you think robotic surgery influences patient recovery time? PERCEPTIONS OF SURGICAL ROBOTICS - Gilbert, Kechris, Marchese, Pelletier - Patient Practitioner General 1 = drastically decrease 5= drastically increase Precieved Impact on Length of Procedure Perceived Impact on Length of Procedure Data was also collected with regard to each of the three population’s perceptions of the impact of RAS on the length of a surgical procedure. The practitioner survey responses are statistically different than both the patient and general population responses (p = 0.002 and p = 0.000, respectively). For Patients M = 2.41, SD = 0.93, N = 27. For Practitioners M = 3.24, SD = 1.06, N = 29. For the general population M = 2.33, SD = 0.80, N = 89. Results show that practitioners feel as though the use of robots during surgery slightly increases procedure time. The patient population and general population on average felt the same about the impact of RAS on the