[Minimal access surgery: A survey among surgeons in Central Germany]

A survey about perceptions concerning natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single port operations (SPO) was conducted among medical professionals at hospitals in Central Germany. The identity of the participants remained anonymous. The focus was on the subjective perception of medical colleagues and included a statement of preferred methods if the medical professional would need to undergo surgery.

Within a radius of 120 km of the city of Erfurt, all 150 surgical departments were approached and asked to complete a series of questionnaires containing general and personal questions. The analysis was performed according to the professional rank, age and sex of the participants. The questionnaires contained questions on patient preferences, cosmetic aspects and other factors, such as marketing, industry-driven, playful approach of the surgeon and appeal of a new procedure.

In total 83 surgical departments participated in the survey resulting in 432 eligible questionnaires. Of the participants 29 % were female, the average age was 44 years, 20 % were heads of departments, 37 % senior surgeons, 20 % specialist surgeons and 23 % residents. The proportion of conventional minimally invasive surgical procedures was on average 30 % of all surgical interventions. Two hospitals offered transvaginal hybrid NOTES (cholecystectomy), 45 % performed SPOs, 36 % of the participants agreed strongly or moderately with the concept of SPO and 34 % rejected NOTES. The factors industry-driven, promotion/marketing and appeal of a new procedure were evaluated as very important or relatively important by the majority of the participants (> 70 %). When evaluating the factor playful approach of the surgeon, the proportion was 55 %. The factor patient preferences was evaluated as very high or high by 25% of the participants while it had no impact on 8 % or only a minor impact on 36 %. In case of undergoing surgery themselves, conventional laparoscopy would be preferred and NOTES was rated last among all options.

The soft factors that were analyzed (i.e. marketing, industry-driven, playful approach of the surgeon and appeal of something new) were evaluated as much more important in the surgeons' opinion compared to patient criteria (i.e. patient preferences and cosmetic results). The soft factors are, however, not to be judged as generally negative as they are to a certain extent necessary (marketing), useful (impulses from industry) or are part of the surgical creativity (playfulness). The discrepancies in the medical professional evaluation of the different factors shows that the reasoning and the motivation of the actions are not necessarily identical.