Literature DB >> 22835493

The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals.

Maria B Schiavone1, Eugenia C Kuo, R Wendel Naumann, William M Burke, Sharyn N Lewin, Alfred I Neugut, Dawn L Hershman, Thomas J Herzog, Jason D Wright.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the content, quality, and accuracy of information provided on hospital web sites about robotic gynecologic surgery. STUDY
DESIGN: An analysis of hospitals with more than 200 beds from a selection of states was performed. Hospital web sites were analyzed for the content and quality of data regarding robotic-assisted surgery.
RESULTS: Among 432 hospitals, the web sites of 192 (44.4%) contained marketing for robotic gynecologic surgery. Stock images (64.1%) and text (24.0%) derived from the robot manufacturer were frequent. Although most sites reported improved perioperative outcomes, limitations of robotics including cost, complications, and operative time were discussed only 3.7%, 1.6%, and 3.7% of the time, respectively. Only 47.9% of the web sites described a comparison group.
CONCLUSION: Marketing of robotic gynecologic surgery is widespread. Much of the content is not based on high-quality data, fails to present alternative procedures, and relies on stock text and images.
Copyright © 2012 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22835493     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  17 in total

Review 1.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Benjamin B Albright; Tilman Witte; Alena N Tofte; Jeremy Chou; Jonathan D Black; Vrunda B Desai; Elisabeth A Erekson
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 2.  Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Fred Brody; Nathan G Richards
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Developing a robotic program in thoracic surgery at Cape Cod Hospital.

Authors:  Jeffrey Spillane; Paula Brooks
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-02-26

4.  Why do we argue about route of hysterectomy? A call for dialogue.

Authors:  Andrew J Walter
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-12-26       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence.

Authors:  Arif Ahmad; Zoha F Ahmad; Jared D Carleton; Ashish Agarwala
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Comparative effectiveness of robotically assisted compared with laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign gynecologic disease.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Alessandra Kostolias; Cande V Ananth; William M Burke; Ana I Tergas; Eri Prendergast; Scott D Ramsey; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Robotic urologic surgery: trends in litigation over the last decade.

Authors:  Farnoosh Nik-Ahd; Colby P Souders; Hanson Zhao; Justin Houman; Lynn McClelland; Bilal Chughtai; Jennifer T Anger
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-01-08

8.  Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.

Authors:  Theresa A Lawrie; Hongqian Liu; DongHao Lu; Therese Dowswell; Huan Song; Lei Wang; Gang Shi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-04-15

9.  Who should adopt robotic surgery, and when?

Authors:  Jessica K Smyth; Karen E Deveney; Robert M Sade
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Hanhan Li; Jesse Sammon; Florian Roghmann; Akshay Sood; Michael Ehlert; Maxine Sun; Mani Menon; Humphrey Atiemo; Quoc-Dien Trinh
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.