Robotic Surgery in Australasian Gynaecology: Results of a 2025 Cross‐Sectional Survey

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted gynaecologic surgery has expanded globally, yet its adoption in Australasia remains variable. AIM: To evaluate the current attitudes, practice patterns, and perceived barriers surrounding robotic-assisted gynaecologic surgery among clinicians in Australia and New Zealand (Australasian). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymised electronic survey was distributed to all RANZCOG-certified obstetrician-gynaecologists practicing in Australasian. The survey assessed demographics, access to and use of robotic platforms, perceived advantages and limitations, and willingness to expand robotic practice. Associations between years of clinical experience and access, utilisation, and attitudes toward robotic surgery were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 276 clinicians responded. Most (62.2%) had more than 10 years of clinical experience. 37.5% reported access to robotic-assisted surgery, and among those, 34% currently performed robotic procedures mostly for < 25% of major operations. Willingness to expand usage remained low even if access improved (42.8%). Ergonomic benefit and surgeon longevity were the most cited advantages, while fewer than half believed robotics improved patient outcomes. Main barriers were high cost, longer operative time, limited evidence of benefit, and scarce training opportunities. Clinicians with ≤ 10 years of experience were more likely than senior colleagues to perceive advantages (68.3% vs. 38.8%) and to express willingness to adopt robotics if given access (56.9% vs. 33.7%). CONCLUSIONS: As of 2025, robotic surgery remains limited in Australasian gynaecology, with adoption shaped by practical concerns, limited evidence, cost, and access. Nevertheless, greater enthusiasm among early-career clinicians suggests future practice may evolve. Ongoing evaluation and evidence-based decision-making will be essential as the field advances.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.