Three aspects of the robotic platform, however, are worthy of mention as areas of potential ergonomic detriment. First, detractors of robotic surgery have long consid­ered the lack of haptic feedback of the robotic platform an Achilles’ heel [56, 57]. Undoubtedly, the inability to “feel” the tissues under dissection is a limitation but most experienced robotic surgeons find this surmountable. An interesting and poten­tially dangerous phenomenon does exist, however, where the experienced laparo­scopic surgeon accustomed to exerting excess force in dissection comes to a robotic platform where feel is absent and minimal force is needed for dissection. This natu­rally leads to a cautious and careful dissection, which ultimately may lengthen oper­ative time. This increase in operative time is the second ergonomic concern, potentially leading to both visual and mental ergonomic strain. Three-dimensional vision is a new and unfamiliar view, the magnification and view is extreme in its quality, and the dissection may be painstaking for the novice robotic surgeon. These factors undoubtedly lead to a palpable fatigue which is difficult to study in the nov­ice or experienced surgeon and is not captured in the ergonomic or learning curve­related literature [58]. Additionally, operative time itself can be a risk factor for complications and timely completion of a case is paramount in the minds of many surgeons. Lastly, the concept of operative room crowding and distraction is taken to new levels by the robotic platform [59]. In this report the anecdotal toll of the addi­tional wires, cords, and tubes needed for a laparoscopic case is quantified. For a robotic case this is only amplified and in many instances surgeons use a hybrid approach where the laparoscopic and robotic approaches and instrumentation are both used.