Literature DB >> 27749475

Adoption of Robotic Technology for Treating Colorectal Cancer.

Mario Schootman1, Samantha Hendren, Kendra Ratnapradipa, Lisa Stringer, Nick O Davidson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Debate exists regarding the role of robotic-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer. Robotic-assisted surgery has been promoted as a strategy to increase the availability of minimally invasive surgery, which is associated with improved short-term morbidity; however, robotic-assisted surgery is much more expensive than laparoscopic surgery.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand hospital and patient trends in the adoption of robotic-assisted surgery.
DESIGN: The study used cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. SETTINGS: The study included 2010 and 2012 American Hospital Association surveys, as well as the 2010-2012 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. PATIENTS: US hospitals responding to the American Hospital Association survey were included to measure patients with colorectal cancer who were undergoing elective minimally invasive surgery or open resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Robotic-assisted surgery adoption by US hospitals was measured, regarding specifically patients with colorectal cancer who were treated with robotic surgery.
RESULTS: In 2010, 20.1% of hospitals adopted robotic-assisted surgery, increasing to 27.4% by 2012. Hospitals more likely to adopt robotic-assisted surgery included teaching hospitals, those with more advanced imaging services, those in metropolitan rather than rural areas, and those performing the highest inpatient surgery volume. Robotic-assisted surgery only accounted for 1.3% of colorectal cancer operations during 2010-2012, but patient probability of robotic-assisted surgery ranged from 0.1% to 15.2%. The percentage of patients with colorectal cancer who were treated robotically among those undergoing minimally invasive surgery increased over time (2010, 1.5%; 2012, 3.6%). Robotic-assisted surgery is increasing more rapidly for patients with rectal cancer with minimally invasive surgery (2010, 5.5%; 2012, 13.3%) versus patients with colon cancer treated with minimally invasive surgery (2010, 1.3%; 2012, 3.3%). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its observational study design.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted surgery uptake remains low for colon cancer but higher for rectal cancer surgery, suggesting a more thoughtful adoption of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer by focusing its use on more technically challenging cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27749475      PMCID: PMC5510895          DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000688

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Obstacles to Developing Cost-Lowering Health Technology: The Inventor's Dilemma.

Authors:  Arthur L Kellermann; Nihar R Desai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  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

4.  The robot has no role in elective colon surgery.

Authors:  James Yoo
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 14.766

5.  Factors associated with adoption of robotic surgical technology in US hospitals and relationship to radical prostatectomy procedure volume.

Authors:  Gabriel I Barbash; Bernard Friedman; Sherry A Glied; Claudia A Steiner
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 6.  Robotic surgery: colon and rectum.

Authors:  Seong Kyu Baek; Joseph C Carmichael; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.360

7.  Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches?: First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching.

Authors:  Yen-Yi Juo; Omar Hyder; Adil H Haider; Melissa Camp; Anne Lidor; Nita Ahuja
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 14.766

8.  Robot-assisted rectal surgery for malignancy: a review of current literature.

Authors:  Quor Meng Leong; Seon Hahn Kim
Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singapore       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.473

9.  Adoption of CT colonography by US hospitals.

Authors:  Megan McHugh; Awo Osei-Anto; Carrie N Klabunde; Barbara A Galen
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 10.  Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Esther Kuhry; Wolfgang Schwenk; Robin Gaupset; Ulla Romild; Jaap Bonjer
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 12.111

View more
  15 in total

1.  Ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery and the impact of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches.

Authors:  John S Mayo; Miriam L Brazer; Kenneth J Bogenberger; Kelli B Tavares; Robert J Conrad; Michael B Lustik; Suzanne M Gillern; Chan W Park; Carly R Richards
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes After Robotic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection.

Authors:  Ahmed M Al-Mazrou; Onur Baser; Ravi P Kiran
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 3.  The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Harith H Mushtaq; Shinil K Shah; Amit K Agarwal
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2019-03-06

4.  Anorectal complications after robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Li-Jen Kuo; James Chi-Yong Ngu; Yan-Jiun Huang; Yen-Kuang Lin; Chia-Che Chen; Yiu-Shun Tong; Szu-Chia Huang; Chia-Chen Hu; Shu-Hwa Tan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Low confidence levels with the robotic platform among senior surgical residents: simulation training is needed.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Jason M Long; Sean Brown; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-08-11

6.  A Comparison of Pathologic Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Resections for Rectal Cancer Using the ACS-NSQIP Proctectomy-Targeted Database: a Propensity Score Analysis.

Authors:  Richard Garfinkle; Maria Abou-Khalil; Sahir Bhatnagar; Nathalie Wong-Chong; Laurent Azoulay; Nancy Morin; Carol-Ann Vasilevsky; Marylise Boutros
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for stage I-III colon cancer: oncologic and long-term survival outcomes.

Authors:  Katelin A Mirkin; Audrey S Kulaylat; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Evangelos Messaris
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Robert K Cleary; Andrew J Mullard; Jane Ferraro; Scott E Regenbogen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Novel simulator for robotic surgery.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-08-31

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.