ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Patients' perceptions of ethical issues in semi-autonomous robot-assisted surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence enables surgical robots to perform certain actions without surgeon control or semi-autonomously. Patient willingness to undergo surgery via an automated machine is a key barrier to adoption of emerging robotic technology. Further, semi-autonomous surgical robots raise numerous ethical concerns, yet little is known about patients' perceptions of these issues. We assessed patients' perceptions of ethical issues in semi-autonomous robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and how their perceptions would affect decision-making about undergoing semi-autonomous RAS.
methodsAdult patients who underwent surgery within the prior three years, with a non-autonomous robot or without any robot, were recruited via email. We conducted semi-structured teleconference interviews that included open- and closed-ended questions, to assess factors affecting patient decision-making and ethical concerns about semi-autonomous RAS, and demographics. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsFifty patients participated. Most participants were female (62%), White (52%), and the mean age was 53. Most patients (56%) would undergo semi-autonomous RAS. However, willingness varied by which surgical process the robot would have control over. Many patients (46%) were highly willing to undergo semi-autonomous RAS when the robot has control over instruments. Four themes emerged about ethical concerns driving patients' willingness to undergo semi-autonomous RAS: (1) desire for informed consent to express self-determination, (2) semi-autonomous RAS introduces new risks to procedures, (3) doctor-patient relationship and trust can facilitate patients' willingness to undergo semi-autonomous RAS, and (4) semi-autonomous RAS comprises an important surgical innovation, conferring benefits.
conclusionOur findings suggest that most patients would be willing to undergo semi-autonomous RAS. Willingness was related to ethical considerations of informed consent, perceived risks, level of surgeon versus robot control over surgical processes, doctor-patient relationship, and perceived benefits. Addressing patients' perceptions of semi-autonomous RAS may facilitate greater integration of surgical robots into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.