35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures

      research-article
      , MD, MSc 1 , 2 , , , BS 3 , , MD, MPH 1 , 2
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cohort study characterizes trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures.

          Key Points

          Question

          Given concerns that robotic surgery is increasing for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit, how is the use of robotic surgery changing over time?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 169 404 patients in 73 hospitals, the use of robotic surgery for all general surgery procedures increased from 1.8% to 15.1% from 2012 to 2018. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.

          Meaning

          These findings highlight a need to continually monitor the adoption of robotic surgery to ensure that enthusiasm for new technology does not outpace the evidence needed to use it in the most effective clinical contexts.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Increasing use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit is raising concern. Analyses of population-based trends in practice and how hospitals’ acquisition of robotic surgical technologies is associated with their use are limited.

          Objective

          To characterize trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cohort study used clinical registry data from Michigan from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018. Trends were characterized in the use of robotic surgery for common procedures for which traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery was already considered a safe and effective approach for most surgeons when clinically feasible. A multigroup interrupted time series analysis was performed to determine how procedural approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic) change after hospitals launch a robotic surgery program. Data were analyzed from March 1 through April 19, 2019.

          Exposures

          Initiation of robotic surgery.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Procedure approach (ie, robotic, open, or laparoscopic).

          Results

          The study cohort included 169 404 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [16.9] years; 90 595 women [53.5%]) at 73 hospitals. The use of robotic surgery increased from 1.8% in 2012 to 15.1% in 2018 (8.4-fold increase; slope, 2.1% per year; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%). For certain procedures, the magnitude of the increase was greater; for example, for inguinal hernia repair, the use of robotic surgery increased from 0.7% to 28.8% (41.1-fold change; slope, 5.4% per year; 95% CI, 5.1%-5.7%). The use of robotic surgery increased 8.8% in the first 4 years after hospitals began performing robotic surgery (2.8% per year; 95% CI, 2.7%-2.9%). This trend was associated with a decrease in laparoscopic surgery from 53.2% to 51.3% (difference, −1.9%; 95% CI, −2.2% to −1.6%). Before adopting robotic surgery, hospitals’ use of laparoscopic surgery increased 1.3% per year. After adopting robotic surgery, the use of laparoscopic surgery declined 0.3% (difference in trends, −1.6%; 95% CI, −1.7% to −1.5%).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          These results suggest that robotic surgery has continued to diffuse across a broad range of common surgical procedures. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer

            Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

              BACKGROUND Minimally invasive surgery was adopted as an alternative to laparotomy (open surgery) for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer before high-quality evidence regarding its effect on survival was available. We sought to determine the effect of minimally invasive surgery on all-cause mortality among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. METHODS We performed a cohort study involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer during the 2010–2013 period at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals in the United States. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted an interrupted time-series analysis involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer during the 2000–2010 period, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. RESULTS In the primary analysis, 1225 of 2461 women (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Women treated with minimally invasive surgery were more often white, privately insured, and from ZIP Codes with higher socioeconomic status, had smaller, lower-grade tumors, and were more likely to have received a diagnosis later in the study period than women who underwent open surgery. Over a median follow-up of 45 months, the 4-year mortality was 9.1% among women who underwent minimally invasive surgery and 5.3% among those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22 to 2.22; P = 0.002 by the log-rank test). Before the adoption of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (i.e., in the 2000–2006 period), the 4-year relative survival rate among women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer remained stable (annual percentage change, 0.3%; 95% CI, −0.1 to 0.6). The adoption of minimally invasive surgery coincided with a decline in the 4-year relative survival rate of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4) per year after 2006 (P = 0.01 for change of trend). CONCLUSIONS In an epidemiologic study, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with shorter overall survival than open surgery among women with stage IA2 or IB1 cervical carcinoma. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                10 January 2020
                January 2020
                10 January 2020
                : 3
                : 1
                : e1918911
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [2 ]Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor
                [3 ]currently a medical student at University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 14, 2019.
                Published: January 10, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Sheetz KH et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Kyle H. Sheetz, MD, MSc, Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, University of Michigan School of Medicine, 2800 Plymouth Rd, NCRC Bldg 16, Room 100N-11, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ( ksheetz@ 123456med.umich.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Sheetz and Dimick had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: All authors.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sheetz, Dimick.
                Statistical analysis: All authors.
                Obtained funding: Dimick.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Dimick.
                Supervision: Dimick.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Dimick reported receiving personal fees from ArborMetrix, Inc, outside the submitted work and being an equity owner of ArborMetrix, Inc. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported grants 2T32HS000053-27 (Dr Sheetz) and R01HS023597 (Dr Dimick) from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and grant R01AG039434 from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi190710
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911
                6991252
                31922557
                7094d87a-ecbc-4a06-a651-786feca9b1b5
                Copyright 2020 Sheetz KH et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 24 September 2019
                : 14 November 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article