Literature DB >> 26744108

Impact of Robotic Platforms on Surgical Approach and Costs in the Management of Morbidly Obese Patients with Newly Diagnosed Uterine Cancer.

Mario M Leitao1,2, Wazim R Narain3, Donna Boccamazzo3, Vasileios Sioulas3, Danielle Cassella3, Jennifer A Ducie3, Ane Gerda Z Eriksson3, Yukio Sonoda3,4, Dennis S Chi3,4, Carol L Brown3,4, Douglas A Levine3,4, Elizabeth L Jewell3,4, Oliver Zivanovic3,4, Richard R Barakat3,4, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum3,4, Ginger J Gardner3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with decreased complication rates, length of hospital stay, and cost compared with laparotomy. Robotic-assisted surgery-a method of laparoscopy-addresses many of the limitations of standard laparoscopic instrumentation, thus leading to increased rates of MIS. We sought to assess the impact of robotics on the rates and costs of surgical approaches in morbidly obese patients with uterine cancer.
METHODS: Patients who underwent primary surgery at our institution for uterine cancer from 1993 to 2012 with a BMI ≥40 mg/m(2) were identified. Surgical approaches were categorized as laparotomy (planned or converted), laparoscopic, robotic, or vaginal. We identified two time periods based on the evolving use of MIS at our institution: laparoscopic (1993-2007) and robotic (2008-2012). Direct costs were analyzed for cases performed from 2009 to 2012.
RESULTS: We identified 426 eligible cases; 299 performed via laparotomy, 125 via MIS, and 2 via a vaginal approach. The rates of MIS for the laparoscopic and robotic time periods were 6 % and 57 %, respectively. The rate of MIS was 78 % in this morbidly obese cohort in 2012; 69 % were completed robotically. The median length of hospital stay was 5 days (range 2-37) for laparotomy cases and 1 day (range 0-7) for MIS cases (P < 0.001). The complication rate was 36 and 15 %, respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of wound-related complications was 27 and 6 %, respectively (P < 0.001). Laparotomy was associated with the highest cost.
CONCLUSIONS: The robotic platform provides significant health and cost benefits by increasing MIS rates in this patient population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26744108      PMCID: PMC4891264          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-5062-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  19 in total

1.  Robotic surgical staging for obese patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Karen Y Tang; Stuart K Gardiner; Claire Gould; Blake Osmundsen; Michael Collins; William E Winter
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Advances in the management of endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Mario M Leitao; Richard R Barakat
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-01-07       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Introduction of a computer-based surgical platform in the surgical care of patients with newly diagnosed uterine cancer: outcomes and impact on approach.

Authors:  Mario M Leitao; Gabriel Briscoe; Kevin Santos; Abigail Winder; Elizabeth L Jewell; William J Hoskins; Dennis S Chi; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Yukio Sonoda; Carol L Brown; Douglas A Levine; Richard R Barakat; Ginger J Gardner
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: payer-and service-specific estimates.

Authors:  Eric A Finkelstein; Justin G Trogdon; Joel W Cohen; William Dietz
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  A cohort study evaluating robotic versus laparotomy surgical outcomes of obese women with endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Akila Subramaniam; Kenneth H Kim; Shannon A Bryant; Bin Zhang; Christa Sikes; Kristopher J Kimball; Larry C Kilgore; Warner K Huh; John M Straughn; Ronald D Alvarez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-06-11       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Surgical outcome of robotic surgery in morbidly obese patient with endometrial cancer compared to laparotomy.

Authors:  Marcus Q Bernardini; Lilian T Gien; Helen Tipping; Joan Murphy; Barry P Rosen
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.437

7.  Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study.

Authors:  Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-30       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Incisional hernia in gynecologic oncology patients: a 10-year study.

Authors:  M Franchi; F Ghezzi; M Buttarelli; S Tateo; D Balestreri; P Bolis
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman?

Authors:  Paola A Gehrig; Leigh A Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Lisa N Abaid; Alberto Mendivil; John F Boggess
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.

Authors:  Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Gregory Spiegel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-10-05       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Novel Surgical Strategies in the Treatment of Gynecological Malignancies.

Authors:  Martina Aida Angeles; Carlos Martínez-Gómez; Federico Migliorelli; Marie Voglimacci; Justine Figurelli; Stephanie Motton; Yann Tanguy Le Gac; Gwénaël Ferron; Alejandra Martinez
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2018-11-09

2.  Perceptions, Relationship, and Management of Morbidly Obese Patients and the Role of Robotic Surgery.

Authors:  Henri Azaïs; Gaby Moawad; Catherine Uzan; Geoffroy Canlorbe; Jérémie Belghiti
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 3.  The current status of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Tomoko Gota; Kensuke Tomio; Taichi Kurose; Risa Saito; Ryoken Nara; Sohmi Kin; Minami Hoshiba; Yuri Ogata; Misao Nakanishi; Maya Takamoto; Miyuki Sadatsuki; Hajime Oishi
Journal:  Glob Health Med       Date:  2022-02-28

4.  Differences in Effectiveness and Use of Robotic Surgery in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colectomy.

Authors:  M Schootman; S Hendren; T Loux; K Ratnapradipa; J M Eberth; N O Davidson
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Can Teamwork and High-Volume Experience Overcome Challenges of Lymphadenectomy in Morbidly Obese Patients (Body Mass Index of 40 kg/m2 or Greater) with Endometrial Cancer?: A Cohort Study of Robotics and Laparotomy and Review of Literature.

Authors:  Hubert Fornalik; Temeka Zore; Nicole Fornalik; Todd Foster; Adrian Katschke; Gary Wright
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.437

6.  Sentinel lymph node detection in endometrial cancer with indocyanine green: laparoscopic versus robotic approach.

Authors:  N Bizzarri; S Restaino; S Gueli Alletti; G Monterossi; A Gioè; E La Fera; V Gallotta; A Fagotti; G Scambia; F Fanfani
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2021-03-31
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.