John C Byrn1, Jennifer E Hrabe, Mary E Charlton. 1. Division of Gastrointestinal, Minimally Invasive, and Bariatric Surgery, Departments of Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Drive 4577 JCP, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA, john-byrn@uiowa.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data are limited about the robotic platform in rectal dissections, and its use may be perceived as prohibitively expensive or difficult to learn. We report our experience with the initial robotic-assisted rectal dissections performed by a single surgeon, assessing learning curve and cost. METHODS: Following IRB approval, a retrospective chart review was conducted of the first 85 robotic-assisted rectal dissections performed by a single surgeon between 9/1/2010 and 12/31/2012. Patient demographic, clinicopathologic, procedure, and outcome data were gathered. Cost data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database. The first 43 cases (Time 1) were compared to the next 42 cases (Time 2) using multivariate linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Indications for surgery were cancer for 51 patients (60 %), inflammatory bowel disease for 18 (21 %), and rectal prolapse for 16 (19 %). The most common procedures were low anterior resection (n = 25, 29 %) and abdominoperineal resection (n = 21, 25 %). The patient body mass index (BMI) was statistically different between the two patient groups (Time 1, 26.1 kg/m(2) vs. Time 2, 29.4 kg/m(2), p = 0.02). Complication and conversion rates did not differ between the groups. Mean operating time was significantly shorter for Time 2 (267 min vs. 224 min, p = 0.049) and remained significant in multivariate analysis. Though not reaching statistical significance, the mean observed direct hospital cost decreased ($17,349 for Time 1 vs. $13,680 for Time 2, p = 0.2). The observed/expected cost ratio significantly decreased (1.47 for Time 1 vs. 1.05 for Time 2, p = 0.007) but did not remain statistically significant in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Over the series, we demonstrated a significant improvement in operating times. Though not statistically significant, direct hospital costs trended down over time. Studies of larger patient groups are needed to confirm these findings and to correlate them with procedure volume to better define the learning curve process.
BACKGROUND: Data are limited about the robotic platform in rectal dissections, and its use may be perceived as prohibitively expensive or difficult to learn. We report our experience with the initial robotic-assisted rectal dissections performed by a single surgeon, assessing learning curve and cost. METHODS: Following IRB approval, a retrospective chart review was conducted of the first 85 robotic-assisted rectal dissections performed by a single surgeon between 9/1/2010 and 12/31/2012. Patient demographic, clinicopathologic, procedure, and outcome data were gathered. Cost data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database. The first 43 cases (Time 1) were compared to the next 42 cases (Time 2) using multivariate linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Indications for surgery were cancer for 51 patients (60 %), inflammatory bowel disease for 18 (21 %), and rectal prolapse for 16 (19 %). The most common procedures were low anterior resection (n = 25, 29 %) and abdominoperineal resection (n = 21, 25 %). The patient body mass index (BMI) was statistically different between the two patient groups (Time 1, 26.1 kg/m(2) vs. Time 2, 29.4 kg/m(2), p = 0.02). Complication and conversion rates did not differ between the groups. Mean operating time was significantly shorter for Time 2 (267 min vs. 224 min, p = 0.049) and remained significant in multivariate analysis. Though not reaching statistical significance, the mean observed direct hospital cost decreased ($17,349 for Time 1 vs. $13,680 for Time 2, p = 0.2). The observed/expected cost ratio significantly decreased (1.47 for Time 1 vs. 1.05 for Time 2, p = 0.007) but did not remain statistically significant in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Over the series, we demonstrated a significant improvement in operating times. Though not statistically significant, direct hospital costs trended down over time. Studies of larger patient groups are needed to confirm these findings and to correlate them with procedure volume to better define the learning curve process.
Authors: S Trastulli; E Farinella; R Cirocchi; D Cavaliere; N Avenia; F Sciannameo; N Gullà; G Noya; C Boselli Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Wissam J Halabi; Celeste Y Kang; Mehraneh D Jafari; Vinh Q Nguyen; Joseph C Carmichael; Steven Mills; Michael J Stamos; Alessio Pigazzi Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Aaron T Miller; Julia R Berian; Michele Rubin; Roger D Hurst; Alessandro Fichera; Konstantin Umanskiy Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ashwin L deSouza; Leela M Prasad; John Ricci; John J Park; Slawomir J Marecik; Andrea Zimmern; Jennifer Blumetti; Herand Abcarian Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Steven D Wexner; Roberto Bergamaschi; Antonio Lacy; Jonas Udo; Hans Brölmann; Robin H Kennedy; Hubert John Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
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: Rosa M Jiménez-Rodríguez; Mercedes Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares; José Manuel Díaz-Pavón; M Luisa Reyes-Díaz; Jorge Manuel Vazquez-Monchul; Ana M Garcia-Cabrera; Javier Padillo; Fernando De la Portilla Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.571