Literature DB >> 33590420

Uptake and outcomes of robotic gynaecological surgery in England (2006-2018): an account of Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES).

D El-Hamamsy1, R S Geary2, I Gurol-Urganci2, J van der Meulen2, D Tincello3,4.   

Abstract

This was a retrospective study to review the uptake and outcomes of robotic gynaecological surgery in England between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2018, analysing Hospital Episode Statistics form National Health Service hospitals in England. Women aged 18 years and above who had elective gynaecological surgery were included and those who had undergone robotic gynaecology surgery were included. Robotic gynaecological procedures were defined as procedures that used a robotic minimal access approach for hysterectomy, adnexal surgery and urogynaecological surgery (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy and colposuspension). Numbers of procedures were reviewed by year and mapped to the 44 NHS healthcare regions. Length of stay (nights in hospital), laparotomy (conversion during primary procedure or after return to theatre for management of complication), and 30-day emergency readmission rates were calculated by year and procedure type. Overall 527,217 elective gynaecological procedures were performed in the English NHS (1st April 2006 and 31st March 2018), of which 4384 (0.83%) were performed with robotic assistance (3864 (88%) hysterectomy, 706 (16%) adnexal surgery, 192 (4%) urogynaecological surgery). There was gradual rise in the uptake of robotic surgery but there was a marked geographical variation. Median (IQR) length of stay (LOS) was 1(1-2) night, laparotomy rate was 0.3% and 30-day emergency readmission rate was 4.7%. LOS was statistically, but not clinically, different across time. Other outcomes did not differ by year. Robotic gynaecological procedures are increasingly being used in the English NHS, predominantly for hysterectomy, although in small proportions (2.6% in the most recent study year). There was wide geographical variation in robotic uptake across England and overall, outcomes were comparable to those reported in other countries.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd. part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gynaecological; Hospital episodes statistics (HES); Robotic; Surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33590420     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01197-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve?

Authors:  Paulos Yohannes; Paul Rotariu; Peter Pinto; Arthur D Smith; Benjamin R Lee
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 2.  Adoption of new surgical technology.

Authors:  Charles B Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-01-14

Review 3.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in reproductive surgery: a contemporary review.

Authors:  Jayapriya Jayakumaran; Sejal D Patel; Bhushan K Gangrade; Deepa Maheswari Narasimhulu; Soundarya Ramanatha Pandian; Celso Silva
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-02-14

4.  Diffusion of technology: Trends in robotic-assisted colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Aneel Damle; Rachelle N Damle; Julie M Flahive; Andrew T Schlussel; Jennifer S Davids; Paul R Sturrock; Justin A Maykel; Karim Alavi
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Hospital factors strongly influence robotic use in general surgery.

Authors:  Camille L Stewart; Sinziana Dumitra; Carolijn Nota; Philip H G Ituarte; Laleh G Melstrom; Yanghee Woo; Gagandeep Singh; Yuman Fong; Hari Nathan; Susanne G Warner
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery in prostate, uterus, and colorectal procedures: a retrospective population-based study.

Authors:  Gary Chung; Piet Hinoul; Paul Coplan; Andrew Yoo
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-06-20

Review 7.  Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  John R Miklos; Robert D Moore; Orawee Chinthakanan
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 4.137

8.  Conversion from robotic surgery to laparotomy: a case-control study evaluating risk factors for conversion.

Authors:  Nate Jones; Nicole D Fleming; Alpa M Nick; Mark F Munsell; Vijayashri Rallapalli; Shannon N Westin; Larissa A Meyer; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pedro T Ramirez; Pamela T Soliman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Trends and Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer between 2004 and 2012- an Analysis using National Inpatient Database.

Authors:  Meng-Tse Gabriel Lee; Chong-Chi Chiu; Chia-Chun Wang; Chia-Na Chang; Shih-Hao Lee; Matthew Lee; Tzu-Chun Hsu; Chien-Chang Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Effect of patient choice and hospital competition on service configuration and technology adoption within cancer surgery: a national, population-based study.

Authors:  Ajay Aggarwal; Daniel Lewis; Malcolm Mason; Arnie Purushotham; Richard Sullivan; Jan van der Meulen
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  1 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach of Bai-Jiang-style vagus nerve-preserving splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection.

Authors:  Dou-Sheng Bai; Sheng-Jie Jin; Xiao-Xing Xiang; Jian-Jun Qian; Chi Zhang; Bao-Huan Zhou; Guo-Qing Jiang
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-01-07
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.