Asya Ofshteyn1, Katherine Bingmer1, Christopher W Towe1, Emily Steinhagen1, Sharon L Stein2. 1. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcome & Effectiveness (UH-RISES), University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center/Case Western Reserve University, 11100 Euclid Avenue, LKS 5047, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcome & Effectiveness (UH-RISES), University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center/Case Western Reserve University, 11100 Euclid Avenue, LKS 5047, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. Sharon.stein@uhhospitals.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic and racial differences have been associated with disparities in cancer care within the US, including disparate access to minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. We hypothesized that robotic approach to rectal cancer may be associated with similar disparities. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients over 18 years old with clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent a proctectomy between 2010 and 2014. Demographic and hospital factors were analyzed for association with robotic approach. Factors identified on bivariate analyses informed multivariate analysis. RESULTS: We identified 33,503 patients who met inclusion criteria; 3702 (11.1%) underwent robotic surgery with 7.8% conversion rate. Patients who received robotic surgery were more likely to be male, white, privately insured and with stage III cancer. They were also more likely to live in a metropolitan area, more than 25 miles away from the hospital and with a higher high school graduation rate. The treating hospital was more likely to be academic and high volume. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is performed rarely and access to it is limited for patients who are female, black, older, non-privately insured and unable to travel to high-volume teaching institutions. The advantages of robotic surgery may not be available to all patients given disparate access to the robot. This inherent bias in access to robot may skew study populations, preventing generalizability of robotic surgery research.
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic and racial differences have been associated with disparities in cancer care within the US, including disparate access to minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. We hypothesized that robotic approach to rectal cancer may be associated with similar disparities. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients over 18 years old with clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent a proctectomy between 2010 and 2014. Demographic and hospital factors were analyzed for association with robotic approach. Factors identified on bivariate analyses informed multivariate analysis. RESULTS: We identified 33,503 patients who met inclusion criteria; 3702 (11.1%) underwent robotic surgery with 7.8% conversion rate. Patients who received robotic surgery were more likely to be male, white, privately insured and with stage III cancer. They were also more likely to live in a metropolitan area, more than 25 miles away from the hospital and with a higher high school graduation rate. The treating hospital was more likely to be academic and high volume. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is performed rarely and access to it is limited for patients who are female, black, older, non-privately insured and unable to travel to high-volume teaching institutions. The advantages of robotic surgery may not be available to all patients given disparate access to the robot. This inherent bias in access to robot may skew study populations, preventing generalizability of robotic surgery research.
Authors: Megan C Turner; Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Zhifei Sun; Jina Kim; Brian Ezekian; Babatunde A Yerokun; Christopher R Mantyh; John Migaly Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jorge Silva-Velazco; David W Dietz; Luca Stocchi; Meagan Costedio; Emre Gorgun; Matthew F Kalady; Hermann Kessler; Ian C Lavery; Feza H Remzi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David Y Lee; Annabelle Teng; Rose C Pedersen; Farees R Tavangari; Vikram Attaluri; Elisabeth C McLemore; Stacey L Stern; Anton J Bilchik; Melanie R Goldfarb Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Anastasia Jermihov; Liwei Chen; Maria F Echavarria; Emily P Ng; Frank O Velez; Carla C Moodie; Joseph R Garrett; Jacques P Fontaine; Eric M Toloza Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-06-22
Authors: Michael L Horsey; Debra Lai; Andrew D Sparks; Aalap Herur-Raman; Marie Borum; Sanjana Rao; Matthew Ng; Vincent J Obias Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2022-01-20