Literature DB >> 23660720

Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy.

Charlotte Tsui1, Rachel Klein, Matthew Garabrant.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgeons have rapidly adopted minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques for a wide range of applications since the first laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 1983. At the helm of this MIS shift has been laparoscopy, with robotic surgery also gaining ground in a number of areas.
METHODS: Researchers estimated national volumes, growth forecasts, and MIS adoption rates for the following procedures: cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastric bypass, ventral hernia repair, colectomy, prostatectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and myomectomy. MIS adoption rates are based on secondary research, interviews with clinicians and administrators involved in MIS, and a review of clinical literature, where available. Overall volume estimates and growth forecasts are sourced from The Advisory Board Company's national demand model which provides current and future utilization rate projections for inpatient and outpatient services. The model takes into account demographics (growth and aging of the population) as well as non demographic factors such as inpatient to outpatient shift, increase in disease prevalence, technological advancements, coverage expansion, and changing payment models.
RESULTS: Surgeons perform cholecystectomy, a relatively simple procedure, laparoscopically in 96 % of the cases. Use of the robot as a tool in laparoscopy is gaining traction in general surgery and seeing particular growth within colorectal surgery. Surgeons use robotic surgery in 15 % of colectomy cases, far behind that of prostatectomy but similar to that of hysterectomy, which have robotic adoption rates of 90 and 20 %, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons are using minimally invasive surgical techniques, primarily laparoscopy and robotic surgery, to perform procedures that were previously done as open surgery. As risk-based pressures mount, hospital executives will increasingly scrutinize the cost of new technology and the impact it has on patient outcomes. These changing market dynamics may thwart the expansion of new surgical techniques and heighten emphasis on competency standards.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23660720     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-2973-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  10 in total

1.  Cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open colectomy in patients with colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population database.

Authors:  Sachin Vaid; James Tucker; Ted Bell; Rod Grim; Vanita Ahuja
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 0.688

2.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Gabriel I Barbash; Sherry A Glied
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Coelioscopic cholecystectomy. Preliminary report of 36 cases.

Authors:  F Dubois; P Icard; G Berthelot; H Levard
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample.

Authors:  Paul D Colavita; Victor B Tsirline; Amanda L Walters; Amy E Lincourt; Igor Belyansky; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; William M Burke; Elizabeth T Wilde; Sharyn N Lewin; Abigail S Charles; Jin Hee Kim; Noah Goldman; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-30       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals.

Authors:  Angela M Ingraham; Mark E Cohen; Karl Y Bilimoria; Timothy A Pritts; Clifford Y Ko; Thomas J Esposito
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 7.  Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant colorectal diseases.

Authors:  David Liska; Sang W Lee; Govind Nandakumar
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.719

8.  Kurt Semm: A laparoscopic crusader.

Authors:  K Bhattacharya
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.407

9.  Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches.

Authors:  Vanessa L Jacoby; Amy Autry; Gavin Jacobson; Robert Domush; Sanae Nakagawa; Alison Jacoby
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  The evolution of laparoscopy and the revolution in surgery in the decade of the 1990s.

Authors:  William E Kelley
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2008 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

  10 in total
  52 in total

1.  Kinect technology for hand tracking control of surgical robots: technical and surgical skill comparison to current robotic masters.

Authors:  Yonjae Kim; Simon Leonard; Azad Shademan; Axel Krieger; Peter C W Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comparative analysis of open and robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair.

Authors:  James G Bittner; Sameer Alrefai; Michelle Vy; Micah Mabe; Paul A R Del Prado; Natasha L Clingempeel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A Novel Endoscope System for Position Detection and Depth Estimation of the Ureter.

Authors:  Enmin Song; Feng Yu; Hong Liu; Ning Cheng; Yunlong Li; Lianghai Jin; Chih-Cheng Hung
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  Hands-on 2.0: improving transfer of training via the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Acquisition of Data for Outcomes and Procedure Transfer (ADOPT) program.

Authors:  Jonathan Dort; Amber Trickey; John Paige; Erin Schwarz; Brian Dunkin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-12-30       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Use of robotic technology: a survey of practice patterns of the ASCRS Young Surgeons Committee.

Authors:  D S Keller; K Zaghiyan; J S Mizell
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 3.781

6.  Robotic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy inpatient analysis: does the end justify the means?

Authors:  Jan P Kamiński; Kenneth W Bueltmann; Marek Rudnicki
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  With widespread adoption of MIS colectomy for colon cancer, does hospital type matter?

Authors:  K Freischlag; M Adam; M Turner; J Watson; B Ezekian; P M Schroder; C Mantyh; J Migaly
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons' conversion: a study of trends and costs.

Authors:  Priscila R Armijo; Spyridon Pagkratis; Eugene Boilesen; Tiffany Tanner; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  A Comparison of Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery for Hepatic and Pancreatic Resections Among the Medicare Population.

Authors:  Qinyu Chen; Katiuscha Merath; Fabio Bagante; Ozgur Akgul; Mary Dillhoff; Jordan Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

Authors:  Rana M Higgins; Matthew J Frelich; Matthew E Bosler; Jon C Gould
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.