Literature DB >> 26886156

Effect of Regional Hospital Competition and Hospital Financial Status on the Use of Robotic-Assisted Surgery.

Jason D Wright1, Ana I Tergas1, June Y Hou1, William M Burke1, Ling Chen2, Jim C Hu3, Alfred I Neugut4, Cande V Ananth5, Dawn L Hershman4.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Despite the lack of efficacy data, robotic-assisted surgery has diffused rapidly into practice. Marketing to physicians, hospitals, and patients has been widespread, but how this marketing has contributed to the diffusion of the technology remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of regional hospital competition and hospital financial status on the use of robotic-assisted surgery for 5 commonly performed procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort study of 221 637 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, total nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, hysterectomy, or oophorectomy at 1370 hospitals in the United States from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011, was conducted. The association between hospital competition, hospital financial status, and performance of robotic-assisted surgery was examined. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The association between hospital competition was measured with the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), hospital financial status was estimated as operating margin, and performance of robotic-assisted surgery was examined using multivariate mixed-effects regression models.
RESULTS: We identified 221 637 patients who underwent one of the procedures of interest. The cohort included 30 345 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy; 20 802, total nephrectomy; 8060, partial nephrectomy; 134 985, hysterectomy; and 27 445, oophorectomy. Robotic-assisted operations were performed for 20 500 (67.6%) radical prostatectomies, 1405 (6.8%) total nephrectomies, 2759 (34.2%) partial nephrectomies, 14 047 (10.4%) hysterectomies, and 1782 (6.5%) oophorectomies. Use of robotic-assisted surgery increased for each procedure from January 2010 through December 2011. For all 5 operations, increased market competition (as measured by the HHI) was associated with increased use of robotic-assisted surgery. For prostatectomy, the risk ratios (95% CIs) for undergoing a robotic-assisted procedure were 2.20 (1.50-3.24) at hospitals in moderately competitive markets and 2.64 (1.84-3.78) for highly competitive markets compared with noncompetitive markets. For hysterectomy, patients at hospitals in moderately (3.75 [2.26-6.25]) and highly (5.30; [3.27-8.57]) competitive markets were more likely to undergo a robotic-assisted surgery. Increased hospital profitability was associated with use of robotic-assisted surgery only for partial nephrectomy in facilities with medium-high (1.67 [1.13-2.48]) and high (1.50 [0.98-2.29]) operating margins. With analysis limited to patients treated at a hospital that had performed robotic-assisted surgery, there was no longer an association between competition and use of robotic-assisted surgery. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing surgery in a hospital in a competitive regional market were more likely to undergo a robotic-assisted procedure. These data imply that regional competition may influence a hospital's decision to acquire a surgical robot.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26886156     DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  27 in total

1.  The Cost of Failure: Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Rescuing Patients from Major Complications After Liver Resection Using the National Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Jay J Idrees; Charles W Kimbrough; Brad F Rosinski; Carl Schmidt; Mary E Dillhoff; Eliza W Beal; Fabio Bagante; Katiuscha Merath; Qinyu Chen; Jordan M Cloyd; E Christopher Ellison; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Cancer care in the developed world: A comparison of surgical oncology training programs.

Authors:  Motaz Qadan; Andrew R Davies; Hiram C Polk; William H Allum; Murray F Brennan
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Error reporting from the da Vinci surgical system in robotic surgery: A Canadian multispecialty experience at a single academic centre.

Authors:  Emad Rajih; Côme Tholomier; Beatrice Cormier; Vanessa Samouëlian; Thomas Warkus; Moishe Liberman; Hugues Widmer; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Abdullah M Alenizi; Malek Meskawi; Roger Valdivieso; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Pierre I Karakewicz; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Robotic assisted lung resection needs further evidence.

Authors:  Marcello Migliore
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Robotic surgery: is it right for India?

Authors:  Gaurav S Desai
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-06-04

Review 6.  Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.

Authors:  Matthew Zelhart; Andreas M Kaiser
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Frontiers in robot-assisted retroperitoneal oncological surgery.

Authors:  Wesley W Ludwig; Michael A Gorin; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Regional Market Competition is Associated with Aneurysm Diameter at the Time of EVAR.

Authors:  Courtenay M Holscher; M Libby Weaver; James H Black; Christopher J Abularrage; Ying Wei Lum; Thomas Reifsnyder; Devin S Zarkowsky; Caitlin W Hicks
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 1.466

9.  Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Camille L Stewart; Philip H G Ituarte; Kurt A Melstrom; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom; Lily L Lai; Yuman Fong; Yanghee Woo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.