Literature DB >> 25318362

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

James Villamere1, Alana Gebhart, Stephen Vu, Ninh T Nguyen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted general and bariatric surgery is gaining popularity among surgeons. The aim of this study was to analyze the utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques for common elective general and bariatric surgical procedures performed at Academic Medical Centers.
METHODS: We analyzed data from University HealthSystem Consortium clinical database from October 2010 to February 2014 for all patients who underwent laparoscopic versus robotic techniques for eight common elective general and bariatric surgical procedures: gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, gastric band, antireflux surgery, Heller myotomy (HM), cholecystectomy (LC), colectomy, rectal resection (RR). Utilization and outcome measures including demographics, in-hospital mortality, major complications, 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS), and costs were compared between techniques.
RESULTS: 96,694 laparoscopic and robotic procedures were analyzed. Utilization of the robotic approach was the highest for RR (21.4%), followed by HM (9.1%). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality or major complications between laparoscopic versus robotic techniques for all procedures. Only two procedures had improved outcome associated with the robotic approach: robotic HM and robotic LC had a shorter LOS compared to the laparoscopic approach (2.8 ± 3.6 vs. 2.3 ± 2.1; respectively, p < 0.05 for HM and 2.9 ± 2.4 vs. 2.3 ± 1.7; respectively, p < 0.05 for LC). Costs were significantly higher (21%) in the robotic group for all procedures. A subset analysis of patients with minor/moderate severity of illness showed similar results.
CONCLUSION: This national analysis of academic centers showed a low utilization of robotic-assisted laparoscopic elective general and bariatric surgical procedures with the highest utilization for rectal resection. Compared to conventional laparoscopy, there were no observed clinical benefits associated with the robotic approach, but there was a consistently higher cost.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25318362     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3886-y

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


  19 in total

1.  Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery.

Authors:  Hua-yin Yu; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Keith J Kowalczyk; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 7.450

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

Review 3.  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

4.  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

5.  Use of laparoscopy in general surgical operations at academic centers.

Authors:  Ninh T Nguyen; Brian Nguyen; Anderson Shih; Brian Smith; Samuel Hohmann
Journal:  Surg Obes Relat Dis       Date:  2012-07-16       Impact factor: 4.734

Review 6.  The evolution of robotic general surgery.

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

7.  Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass performed in a community hospital setting: the future of bariatric surgery?

Authors:  Chan W Park; Edward C F Lam; Teresa M Walsh; Maxine Karimoto; Adrienne T Ma; Matthew Koo; Chet Hammill; Kenric Murayama; Cedric S F Lorenzo; Racquel Bueno
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  How does the robot affect outcomes? A retrospective review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy for achalasia.

Authors:  Abhijit Shaligram; Jayaraj Unnirevi; Anton Simorov; Vishal M Kothari; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Robotic sleeve gastrectomy: experience of 134 cases and comparison with a systematic review of the laparoscopic approach.

Authors:  Rey Jesús Romero; Radomir Kosanovic; Jorge Rafael Rabaza; Rupa Seetharamaiah; Charan Donkor; Michelle Gallas; Anthony Michael Gonzalez
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.129

10.  Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era.

Authors:  Joshua A Tyler; Justin P Fox; Mayur M Desai; W Brian Perry; Sean C Glasgow
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.585

View more
  18 in total

1.  Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases.

Authors:  Maria S Altieri; Jie Yang; Dana A Telem; Jiawen Zhu; Caitlin Halbert; Mark Talamini; Aurora D Pryor
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Bariatric surgery for obesity and metabolic disorders: state of the art.

Authors:  Ninh T Nguyen; J Esteban Varela
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 3.  Robotic versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dimitrios E Magouliotis; Vasiliki S Tasiopoulou; Eleni Sioka; Dimitrios Zacharoulis
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 4.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kun Li; Jianan Zou; Jianxiong Tang; Jianzhong Di; Xiaodong Han; Pin Zhang
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.129

5.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Lixia Wang; Liang Yao; Peijing Yan; Dongsheng Xie; Caiwen Han; Rong Liu; Kehu Yang; Tiankang Guo; Limin Tian
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.129

6.  [Transaxillary robot-assisted thyroidectomy: First experiences with a new operation technique].

Authors:  S Eckhardt; E Maurer; V Fendrich; D K Bartsch
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 7.  [Minimally invasive robot-assisted gastric bypass after open Mason reduction gastroplasty].

Authors:  U Hesse; J Lenz; L Thumfart; H Stein
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 0.955

8.  Could ICG-aided robotic cholecystectomy reduce the rate of open conversion reported with laparoscopic approach? A head to head comparison of the largest single institution studies.

Authors:  A Gangemi; R Danilkowicz; F E Elli; F Bianco; M Masrur; P C Giulianotti
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-07-19

9.  Role of Robotic Surgery in Complex Revisional Bariatric Procedures.

Authors:  Yilon Lima Cheng; Enrique F Elli
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 4.129

10.  Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions.

Authors:  Yvonne Y Chan; Blythe Durbin-Johnson; Renea M Sturm; Eric A Kurzrock
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 1.830

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.