BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is offered at most major medical institutions. The extent of its use within general surgical oncology, however, is poorly understood. We hypothesized that robotic surgery adoption in surgical oncology is increasing annually, that is occurring in all surgical sites, and all regions of the US. STUDY DESIGN: We identified patients with site-specific malignancies treated with surgical resection from the National Inpatient Sample 2010-2014 databases. Operations were considered robotic if any ICD-9-CM robotic procedure code was used. RESULTS: We identified 147,259 patients representing the following sites: esophageal (3%), stomach (5%), small bowel (5%), pancreas (7%), liver (5%), and colorectal (75%). Most operations were open (71%), followed by laparoscopic (26%), and robotic (3%). In 2010, only 1.1% of operations were robotic; over the 5-year study period, there was a 5.0-fold increase in robotic surgery, compared to 1.1-fold increase in laparoscopy and 1.2-fold decrease in open surgery (< 0.001). These trends were observed for all surgical sites and in all regions of the US, they were strongest for esophageal and colorectal operations, and in the Northeast. Adjusting for age and comorbidities, odds of having a robotic operation increased annually (5.6 times more likely by 2014), with similar length of stay (6.9 ± 6.5 vs 7.0 ± 6.5, p = 0.52) and rate of complications (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-1.01, p = 0.08) compared to laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery as a platform for minimally invasive surgery is increasing over time for oncologic operations. The growing use of robotic surgery will affect surgical oncology practice in the future, warranting further study of its impact on cost, outcomes, and surgical training.
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is offered at most major medical institutions. The extent of its use within general surgical oncology, however, is poorly understood. We hypothesized that robotic surgery adoption in surgical oncology is increasing annually, that is occurring in all surgical sites, and all regions of the US. STUDY DESIGN: We identified patients with site-specific malignancies treated with surgical resection from the National Inpatient Sample 2010-2014 databases. Operations were considered robotic if any ICD-9-CM robotic procedure code was used. RESULTS: We identified 147,259 patients representing the following sites: esophageal (3%), stomach (5%), small bowel (5%), pancreas (7%), liver (5%), and colorectal (75%). Most operations were open (71%), followed by laparoscopic (26%), and robotic (3%). In 2010, only 1.1% of operations were robotic; over the 5-year study period, there was a 5.0-fold increase in robotic surgery, compared to 1.1-fold increase in laparoscopy and 1.2-fold decrease in open surgery (< 0.001). These trends were observed for all surgical sites and in all regions of the US, they were strongest for esophageal and colorectal operations, and in the Northeast. Adjusting for age and comorbidities, odds of having a robotic operation increased annually (5.6 times more likely by 2014), with similar length of stay (6.9 ± 6.5 vs 7.0 ± 6.5, p = 0.52) and rate of complications (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-1.01, p = 0.08) compared to laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery as a platform for minimally invasive surgery is increasing over time for oncologic operations. The growing use of robotic surgery will affect surgical oncology practice in the future, warranting further study of its impact on cost, outcomes, and surgical training.
Entities:
Keywords:
Minimally invasive surgery; National Inpatient Sample; Robotic surgery
Authors: Mikhail Efanov; Ruslan Alikhanov; Victor Tsvirkun; Ivan Kazakov; Olga Melekhina; Pavel Kim; Andrey Vankovich; Konstantin Grendal; Stanislav Berelavichus; Igor Khatkov Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Rosa M Jiménez-Rodríguez; José Manuel Díaz-Pavón; Fernando de la Portilla de Juan; Emilio Prendes-Sillero; Hisnard Cadet Dussort; Javier Padillo Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Martijn Hgm van der Pas; Eva Haglind; Miguel A Cuesta; Alois Fürst; Antonio M Lacy; Wim Cj Hop; Hendrik Jaap Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Richard S Hoehn; Ibrahim Nassour; Mohamed A Adam; Sharon Winters; Alessandro Paniccia; Amer H Zureikat Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Pasquale Scognamiglio; Björn-Ole Stüben; Asmus Heumann; Jun Li; Jakob R Izbicki; Daniel Perez; Matthias Reeh Journal: Visc Med Date: 2021-11-12
Authors: L J X Giesen; J W T Dekker; M Verseveld; R M P H Crolla; G P van der Schelling; C Verhoef; P B Olthof Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: James M Ferguson; Bryn Pitt; Alan Kuntz; Josephine Granna; Nicholas L Kavoussi; Naren Nimmagadda; Eric J Barth; Stanley Duke Herrell; Robert J Webster Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Jared Johnson; Houmehr Hojjat; Michael T Chung; Khashayar Arianpour; Hani Rayess; Robert Eckert; Michael Carron Journal: Plast Surg (Oakv) Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 0.947