Sponsoring surgeons: An investigation on the influence of the da Vinci robot

The integrity of the medical literature about robotic surgery remains unclear despite wide-spread adoption. We sought to determine if payment from Intuitive Surgical Incorporated (ISI) affected quality of the research produced by surgeons.

Publicly available financial data from the CMS website regarding the top-20 earners from ISI for 2015 was gathered. Studies conducted by these surgeons were identified using PubMed. Inclusion criteria consisted of publications about the da Vinci^® robot on patient outcomes. The primary outcome of our study was if the study conclusion was positive/equivocal/negative towards the robot. Secondary outcomes included authorship, sponsorship, study controls, and disclosure.

The top earners received $3,296,844 in 2015, with a median of $141,959. Sub-specialties included general surgery (55%), colorectal (20%), thoracic (15%), and obstetrics/gynecology (10%). Of the 37 studies, there was 1 RCT, with observational studies comprising the rest. The majority of the studies (n = 16, 43%) had no control population, with 11 (30%) comparing to same institution/surgeon, Though ISI sponsored only 6 (16%) studies, all with positive conclusions, 27 (73%) studies had positive conclusions for robot use, 9 (24%) equivocal, and only 1 (3%) negative. Overall, 13 earners had lead authorship and 11 senior.

This initial pilot study highlights a potential bias as current literature published by benefactors demonstrates low quality and highly positive conclusions towards approval of the robot. This substantiates the need for a large, systematic review of the potential influence of sponsoring surgeons on medical literature.