BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery has become increasingly common; however, it is unclear if its use for colectomy improves in-hospital outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare in-hospital outcomes and costs between patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic colectomy. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review of the 2008 to 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. SETTINGS, PATIENTS, INTERVENTIONS: All adult patients who underwent an elective robotic or laparoscopic colectomy in hospitals performing both procedures (N = 2583 representing an estimated 12,732 procedures) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of stay, and direct costs of care. Regression models were used to compare these outcomes between procedural approaches while controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 6.1% of patients underwent a robotic procedure. Factors associated with robotic-assisted colectomy included younger age, benign diagnoses, and treatment at a lower-volume center. Patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic procedures experienced similar rates of intraoperative (3.0% vs 3.3%; adjusted OR = 0.88 (0.35-2.22)) and postoperative (21.7% vs 21.6%; adjusted OR = 0.84 (0.54-1.30)) complications, as well as risk-adjusted average lengths of stay (5.4 vs 5.5 days, p = 0.66). However, robotic-assisted colectomy resulted in significantly higher costs of care ($19,231 vs $15,807, p < 0.001). Although the overall postoperative morbidity rate was similar between groups, the individual complications experienced by each group were different. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study is the potential miscoding of robotic cases in administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted colectomy significantly increases the costs of care without providing clear reductions in overall morbidity or length of stay. As the use of robotic technology in colon surgery continues to evolve, critical appraisal of the benefits offered in comparison with the resources consumed is required.
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery has become increasingly common; however, it is unclear if its use for colectomy improves in-hospital outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare in-hospital outcomes and costs between patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic colectomy. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review of the 2008 to 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. SETTINGS, PATIENTS, INTERVENTIONS: All adult patients who underwent an elective robotic or laparoscopic colectomy in hospitals performing both procedures (N = 2583 representing an estimated 12,732 procedures) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of stay, and direct costs of care. Regression models were used to compare these outcomes between procedural approaches while controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 6.1% of patients underwent a robotic procedure. Factors associated with robotic-assisted colectomy included younger age, benign diagnoses, and treatment at a lower-volume center. Patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic procedures experienced similar rates of intraoperative (3.0% vs 3.3%; adjusted OR = 0.88 (0.35-2.22)) and postoperative (21.7% vs 21.6%; adjusted OR = 0.84 (0.54-1.30)) complications, as well as risk-adjusted average lengths of stay (5.4 vs 5.5 days, p = 0.66). However, robotic-assisted colectomy resulted in significantly higher costs of care ($19,231 vs $15,807, p < 0.001). Although the overall postoperative morbidity rate was similar between groups, the individual complications experienced by each group were different. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study is the potential miscoding of robotic cases in administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted colectomy significantly increases the costs of care without providing clear reductions in overall morbidity or length of stay. As the use of robotic technology in colon surgery continues to evolve, critical appraisal of the benefits offered in comparison with the resources consumed is required.
Authors: John C Byrn; Jennifer E Hrabe; John G Armstrong; Christopher A Anthony; Mary E Charlton Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.547
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Anuradha R Bhama; Vincent Obias; Kathleen B Welch; James F Vandewarker; Robert K Cleary Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J Shibata; S Ishihara; N Tada; K Kawai; N H Tsuno; H Yamaguchi; E Sunami; J Kitayama; T Watanabe Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 3.781