Yen-Yi Juo1,2, Aditya Mantha3, Ahmad Abiri1,4, Anne Lin2, Erik Dutson5,6. 1. Center for Advanced Surgical and Interventional Technology (CASIT), Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California, UCLA Surg-Gen, Box 956904, 72-239 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-6904, USA. 3. School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA. 4. School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Center for Advanced Surgical and Interventional Technology (CASIT), Los Angeles, CA, USA. edutson@mednet.ucla.edu. 6. Department of Surgery, University of California, UCLA Surg-Gen, Box 956904, 72-239 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-6904, USA. edutson@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted procedures were frequently found to have similar outcomes and indications to their laparoscopic counterparts, yet significant variation existed in the acceptance of robotic-assisted technology between surgical specialties and procedures. We performed a retrospective cohort study investigating factors associated with the adoption of robotic assistance across the United States from 2008 to 2013. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, patient- and hospital-level variables were examined for differential distribution between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed to identify independent factors associated with robotic adoption. Furthermore, cases were stratified by procedure and specialty before being ranked according to proportion of robotic-assistance adoption. Correlation was examined between robotic-assistance adoption and relative outcome in comparison with conventional laparoscopic procedures. RESULTS: The national robotic case volume doubled over the five-year period while a gradual decline in laparoscopic case volume was observed, resulting in an increase in the proportion of procedures performed with robotic assistance from 6.8 to 17%. Patients receiving robotic procedures were more likely to be younger, males, white, privately insured, more affluent, and with less comorbidities. These differences have been decreasing over the study period. The three specialties with the highest proportion of robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedures were urology (34.1%), gynecology (11.0%), and endocrine surgery (9.4%). However, no significant association existed between the frequency of robotic-assistance usage and relative outcome statistics such as mortality, charge, or length of stay. CONCLUSION: The variation in robotic-assistance adoption between specialties and procedures could not be attributable to clinical outcomes alone. Cultural readiness toward adopting new technology within specialty and target anatomic areas appear to be major determining factors influencing its adoption.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted procedures were frequently found to have similar outcomes and indications to their laparoscopic counterparts, yet significant variation existed in the acceptance of robotic-assisted technology between surgical specialties and procedures. We performed a retrospective cohort study investigating factors associated with the adoption of robotic assistance across the United States from 2008 to 2013. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, patient- and hospital-level variables were examined for differential distribution between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed to identify independent factors associated with robotic adoption. Furthermore, cases were stratified by procedure and specialty before being ranked according to proportion of robotic-assistance adoption. Correlation was examined between robotic-assistance adoption and relative outcome in comparison with conventional laparoscopic procedures. RESULTS: The national robotic case volume doubled over the five-year period while a gradual decline in laparoscopic case volume was observed, resulting in an increase in the proportion of procedures performed with robotic assistance from 6.8 to 17%. Patients receiving robotic procedures were more likely to be younger, males, white, privately insured, more affluent, and with less comorbidities. These differences have been decreasing over the study period. The three specialties with the highest proportion of robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedures were urology (34.1%), gynecology (11.0%), and endocrine surgery (9.4%). However, no significant association existed between the frequency of robotic-assistance usage and relative outcome statistics such as mortality, charge, or length of stay. CONCLUSION: The variation in robotic-assistance adoption between specialties and procedures could not be attributable to clinical outcomes alone. Cultural readiness toward adopting new technology within specialty and target anatomic areas appear to be major determining factors influencing its adoption.
Authors: Jeffrey S Barkun; Jeffrey K Aronson; Liane S Feldman; Guy J Maddern; Steven M Strasberg; Douglas G Altman; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Peter McCulloch; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas P Cundy; Hani J Marcus; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Azad S Najmaldin; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alan Karthikesalingam; Peter J Holt; Alberto Vidal-Diez; Sandeep S Bahia; Benjamin O Patterson; Robert J Hinchliffe; Matthew M Thompson Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Jonathan G Yabes; Samia H Lopa; Dwight E Heron; Chung-Chou H Chang; Justin E Bekelman; Joel B Nelson; Julie P W Bynum; Amber E Barnato; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Rafael Coelho; Juan I Monzó Gardiner; Jose Gadú Campos Salcedo; Roberto Puente; Levin Martínez; Diana Finkelstein; Rair Valero; Antonio León; Daniel Angeloni; José Rozanec; Milton Berger; Leandro Totti Cavazzola; Eliney Ferreira Faria; Roberto Días Machado; Felipe Lott; Franz Campos; Jorge G Morales Montor; Carlos Sánchez Moreno; Hugo Dávila Barrios Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Emily A Slopnick; Andrey Petrikovets; David Sheyn; Simon P Kim; Carvell T Nguyen; Adonis K Hijaz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.894