Literature DB >> 24196549

The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start.

Blair A Wormer1, Kristian T Dacey, Kristopher B Williams, Joel F Bradley, Amanda L Walters, Vedra A Augenstein, Dimitrios Stefanidis, B Todd Heniford.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the most commonly performed robotic-assisted general surgery (RAGS) procedures in a nationwide database and compare them with their laparoscopic counterparts.
METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2008 to December 2010 for patients undergoing elective, abdominal RAGS procedures. The two most common, robotic-assisted fundoplication (RF) and gastroenterostomy without gastrectomy (RG), were individually compared with the laparoscopic counterparts (LF and LG, respectively).
RESULTS: During the study, 297,335 patients underwent abdominal general surgery procedures, in which 1,809 (0.6 %) utilized robotic-assistance. From 2009 to 2010, the incidence of RAGS nearly doubled from 573 to 1128 cases. The top five RAGS procedures by frequency were LG, LF, laparoscopic lysis of adhesions, other anterior resection of rectum, and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. Eight of the top ten RAGS were colorectal or foregut operations. RG was performed in 282 patients (0.9 %) and LG in 29,677 patients (99.1 %). When comparing RG with LG there was no difference in age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), postoperative complications, or mortality; however, length of stay (LOS) was longer in RG (2.5 ± 2.4 vs. 2.2 ± 1.5 days; p < 0.0001). Total cost for RG was substantially higher ($60,837 ± 28,887 vs. $42,743 ± 23,366; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (87.2 vs. 50.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (100 vs. 93.0 %; p < 0.0001). RF was performed in 272 patients (3.5 %) and LF in 7,484 patients (96.5 %). RF patients were more often male compared with LF (38.2 vs. 32.3 %; p < 0.05); however, there was no difference in age, race, CCI, LOS, or postoperative complications. RF was more expensive than LF ($37,638 ± 21,134 vs. $32,947 ± 24,052; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (72.4 vs. 54.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (98.5 vs. 88.7 %; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study of RAGS exemplifies its low but increasing incidence across the country. RAGS is regionalized to urban teaching centers compared with conventional laparoscopic techniques. Despite similar postoperative outcomes, there is significantly increased cost associated with RAGS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24196549     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3239-2

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


  39 in total

Review 1.  Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of short outcomes.

Authors:  Binghong Xiong; Li Ma; Caiquan Zhang
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 3.279

Review 2.  Robotic vs. laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  S R Markar; A P Karthikesalingam; M E Hagen; M Talamini; S Horgan; O J Wagner
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.547

3.  Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database.

Authors:  Sero Andonian; Zeph Okeke; Deidre A Okeke; Ardeshir Rastinehad; Brian A Vanderbrink; Lee Richstone; Benjamin R Lee
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.344

5.  The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Jamie E Anderson; David C Chang; J Kellogg Parsons; Mark A Talamini
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 6.  The evolution of robotic general surgery.

Authors:  E B Wilson
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.360

7.  Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Authors:  Monika E Hagen; Francois Pugin; Gilles Chassot; Olivier Huber; Nicolas Buchs; Pouya Iranmanesh; Philippe Morel
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.129

8.  Intraoperative resident education for robotic laparoscopic gastric banding surgery: a pilot study on the safety of stepwise education.

Authors:  Daniel A Hashimoto; Ernest D Gomez; Enrico Danzer; Paula K Edelson; Jon B Morris; Noel N Williams; Kristoffel R Dumon
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database.

Authors:  Ulrich Guller; Sheleika Hervey; Harriett Purves; Lawrence H Muhlbaier; Eric D Peterson; Steve Eubanks; Ricardo Pietrobon
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 10.  Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jie Zhang; Wen-Ming Wu; Lei You; Yu-Pei Zhao
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  11 in total

1.  A New Era of Bile Duct Repair: Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Hepaticojejunostomy.

Authors:  Adolfo Cuendis-Velázquez; Mario Trejo-Ávila; Orlando Bada-Yllán; Eduardo Cárdenas-Lailson; Carlos Morales-Chávez; Luis Fernández-Álvarez; Sujey Romero-Loera; Martin Rojano-Rodríguez; Carlos Valenzuela-Salazar; Mucio Moreno-Portillo
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers.

Authors:  James Villamere; Alana Gebhart; Stephen Vu; Ninh T Nguyen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery.

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

4.  Risk factors for postoperative complications in robotic general surgery.

Authors:  Giovanni Fantola; Laurent Brunaud; Phi-Linh Nguyen-Thi; Adeline Germain; Ahmet Ayav; Laurent Bresler
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2016-09-30

5.  An organizational model to improve the robotic system among general surgeons.

Authors:  B Ielpo; E Vincente; Y Quijano; H Duran; E Diaz; I Fabra; C Oliva; S Olivares; R Ceron; V Ferri; R Caruso
Journal:  G Chir       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb

6.  Implementing a robotics curriculum at an academic general surgery training program: our initial experience.

Authors:  Joshua S Winder; Ryan M Juza; Jennifer Sasaki; Ann M Rogers; Eric M Pauli; Randy S Haluck; Stephanie J Estes; Jerome R Lyn-Sue
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-03-19

7.  Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy after bile duct injury.

Authors:  Adolfo Cuendis-Velázquez; Orlando Bada-Yllán; Mario Trejo-Ávila; Enrique Rosales-Castañeda; Andrés Rodríguez-Parra; Alberto Moreno-Ordaz; Eduardo Cárdenas-Lailson; Martin Rojano-Rodríguez; Carlos Sanjuan-Martínez; Mucio Moreno-Portillo
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 3.445

8.  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

9.  Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a national surgical quality improvement project analysis.

Authors:  Scott C Dolejs; Joshua A Waters; Eugene P Ceppa; Ben L Zarzaur
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic hernia repair: real-world evidence from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC).

Authors:  Melissa LaPinska; Kyle Kleppe; Lars Webb; Thomas G Stewart; Molly Olson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.