Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 3/2014

01.03.2014

The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start

verfasst von: Blair A. Wormer, Kristian T. Dacey, Kristopher B. Williams, Joel F. Bradley III, Amanda L. Walters, Vedra A. Augenstein, Dimitrios Stefanidis, B. Todd Heniford

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 3/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the most commonly performed robotic-assisted general surgery (RAGS) procedures in a nationwide database and compare them with their laparoscopic counterparts.

Methods

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2008 to December 2010 for patients undergoing elective, abdominal RAGS procedures. The two most common, robotic-assisted fundoplication (RF) and gastroenterostomy without gastrectomy (RG), were individually compared with the laparoscopic counterparts (LF and LG, respectively).

Results

During the study, 297,335 patients underwent abdominal general surgery procedures, in which 1,809 (0.6 %) utilized robotic-assistance. From 2009 to 2010, the incidence of RAGS nearly doubled from 573 to 1128 cases. The top five RAGS procedures by frequency were LG, LF, laparoscopic lysis of adhesions, other anterior resection of rectum, and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. Eight of the top ten RAGS were colorectal or foregut operations. RG was performed in 282 patients (0.9 %) and LG in 29,677 patients (99.1 %). When comparing RG with LG there was no difference in age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), postoperative complications, or mortality; however, length of stay (LOS) was longer in RG (2.5 ± 2.4 vs. 2.2 ± 1.5 days; p < 0.0001). Total cost for RG was substantially higher ($60,837 ± 28,887 vs. $42,743 ± 23,366; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (87.2 vs. 50.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (100 vs. 93.0 %; p < 0.0001). RF was performed in 272 patients (3.5 %) and LF in 7,484 patients (96.5 %). RF patients were more often male compared with LF (38.2 vs. 32.3 %; p < 0.05); however, there was no difference in age, race, CCI, LOS, or postoperative complications. RF was more expensive than LF ($37,638 ± 21,134 vs. $32,947 ± 24,052; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (72.4 vs. 54.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (98.5 vs. 88.7 %; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This nationwide study of RAGS exemplifies its low but increasing incidence across the country. RAGS is regionalized to urban teaching centers compared with conventional laparoscopic techniques. Despite similar postoperative outcomes, there is significantly increased cost associated with RAGS.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Mouret P (1996) How I developed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Acad Med Singapore 25:744–747 Mouret P (1996) How I developed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Acad Med Singapore 25:744–747
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Reddick EJ, Olsen DO (1989) Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy: a comparison with mini-lap cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 3:131–133PubMedCrossRef Reddick EJ, Olsen DO (1989) Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy: a comparison with mini-lap cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 3:131–133PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC (2012) Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol 187:1392–1398PubMedCrossRef Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC (2012) Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol 187:1392–1398PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98:125–129PubMed Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98:125–129PubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704PubMedCrossRef Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Hottenrott C (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 25:3954–3956 author reply 3957–3958 PubMedCrossRef Hottenrott C (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 25:3954–3956 author reply 3957–3958 PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK, Talamini MA (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–114PubMedCrossRef Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK, Talamini MA (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–114PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat American Hospital Association (2008) AHA coding clinic for ICD-9-CM. AHA, Chicago American Hospital Association (2008) AHA coding clinic for ICD-9-CM. AHA, Chicago
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRef Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA (2002) Validity of information on comorbidity derived rom ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care 40:675–685PubMedCrossRef Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA (2002) Validity of information on comorbidity derived rom ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care 40:675–685PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE, Ghali WA (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43:1130–1139PubMedCrossRef Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE, Ghali WA (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43:1130–1139PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Belyansky I, Heniford BT (2013) Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 27:109–117PubMedCrossRef Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Belyansky I, Heniford BT (2013) Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 27:109–117PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, Muhlbaier LH, Peterson ED, Eubanks S, Pietrobon R (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg 239:43–52PubMedCrossRef Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, Muhlbaier LH, Peterson ED, Eubanks S, Pietrobon R (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg 239:43–52PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Jayne DG, Culmer PR, Barrie J, Hewson R, Neville A (2011) Robotic platforms for general and colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 13(Suppl. 7):78–82PubMedCrossRef Jayne DG, Culmer PR, Barrie J, Hewson R, Neville A (2011) Robotic platforms for general and colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 13(Suppl. 7):78–82PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606PubMedCrossRef Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Nguyen PL, Hu JC (2012) Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 187:1632–1637PubMedCrossRef Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Nguyen PL, Hu JC (2012) Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 187:1632–1637PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Huffmanm LC, Pandalai PK, Boulton BJ, James L, Starnes SL, Reed MF, Howington JA, Nussbaum MS (2007) Robotic Heller myotomy: a safe operation with higher postoperative quality-of-life indices. Surgery 142:613–618 discussion 618–620PubMedCrossRef Huffmanm LC, Pandalai PK, Boulton BJ, James L, Starnes SL, Reed MF, Howington JA, Nussbaum MS (2007) Robotic Heller myotomy: a safe operation with higher postoperative quality-of-life indices. Surgery 142:613–618 discussion 618–620PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Scott DJ (2005) Robotic laparoscopic fundoplication. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 8:71–83PubMedCrossRef Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Scott DJ (2005) Robotic laparoscopic fundoplication. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 8:71–83PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Luca F, Valvo M, Ghezzi TL, Zuccaro M, Cenciarelli S, Trovato C, Sonzogni A, Biffi R (2013) Impact of robotic surgery on sexual and urinary functions after fully robotic nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 257:672–678PubMedCrossRef Luca F, Valvo M, Ghezzi TL, Zuccaro M, Cenciarelli S, Trovato C, Sonzogni A, Biffi R (2013) Impact of robotic surgery on sexual and urinary functions after fully robotic nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 257:672–678PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Kang J, Yoon KJ, Min BS, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, Lee KY (2013) The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison—open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Ann Surg 257:95–101PubMedCrossRef Kang J, Yoon KJ, Min BS, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, Lee KY (2013) The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison—open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Ann Surg 257:95–101PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Jacobsen G, Berger R, Horgan S (2003) The role of robotic surgery in morbid obesity. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:279–283PubMedCrossRef Jacobsen G, Berger R, Horgan S (2003) The role of robotic surgery in morbid obesity. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:279–283PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Muhlmann G, Klaus A, Kirchmayr W, Wykypiel H, Unger A, Holler E, Nehoda H, Aigner F, Weiss HG (2003) DaVinci robotic-assisted laparoscopic bariatric surgery: is it justified in a routine setting? Obes Surg 13:848–854PubMedCrossRef Muhlmann G, Klaus A, Kirchmayr W, Wykypiel H, Unger A, Holler E, Nehoda H, Aigner F, Weiss HG (2003) DaVinci robotic-assisted laparoscopic bariatric surgery: is it justified in a routine setting? Obes Surg 13:848–854PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G, Huber O, Buchs N, Iranmanesh P, Morel P (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22:52–61PubMedCrossRef Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G, Huber O, Buchs N, Iranmanesh P, Morel P (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22:52–61PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Scozzari G, Rebecchi F, Millo P, Rocchietto S, Allieta R, Morino M (2011) Robot-assisted gastrojejunal anastomosis does not improve the results of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 25:597–603PubMedCrossRef Scozzari G, Rebecchi F, Millo P, Rocchietto S, Allieta R, Morino M (2011) Robot-assisted gastrojejunal anastomosis does not improve the results of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 25:597–603PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C (2002) Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 12:225–232PubMedCrossRef Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C (2002) Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 12:225–232PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1790–1792PubMedCrossRef Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1790–1792PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Markar SR, Karthikesalingam AP, Hagen ME, Talamini M, Horgan S, Wagner OJ (2010) Robotic vs. laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot 6:125–131PubMed Markar SR, Karthikesalingam AP, Hagen ME, Talamini M, Horgan S, Wagner OJ (2010) Robotic vs. laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot 6:125–131PubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Albassam AA, Mallick MS, Gado A, Shoukry M (2009) Nissen fundoplication, robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic procedure: a comparative study in children. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:316–319PubMedCrossRef Albassam AA, Mallick MS, Gado A, Shoukry M (2009) Nissen fundoplication, robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic procedure: a comparative study in children. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:316–319PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang J, Wu WM, You L, Zhao YP (2013) Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1774–1780PubMedCrossRef Zhang J, Wu WM, You L, Zhao YP (2013) Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1774–1780PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of short outcomes. Surg Oncol 21:274–280PubMedCrossRef Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of short outcomes. Surg Oncol 21:274–280PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, Jeong W, Shariat SF, Hansen J, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Rogers CG, Peabody JO, Montorsi F, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 61:679–685PubMedCrossRef Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, Jeong W, Shariat SF, Hansen J, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Rogers CG, Peabody JO, Montorsi F, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 61:679–685PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke DA, Rastinehad A, Vanderbrink BA, Richstone L, Lee BR (2008) Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol 15:3912–3916PubMed Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke DA, Rastinehad A, Vanderbrink BA, Richstone L, Lee BR (2008) Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol 15:3912–3916PubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Moore MJ, Bennett CL (1995) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Southern Surgeons Club. Am J Surg 170:55–59PubMedCrossRef Moore MJ, Bennett CL (1995) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Southern Surgeons Club. Am J Surg 170:55–59PubMedCrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith R, Patel V, Chauhan S, Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: outcomes measures and curriculum development. NextMED/MMVR 20; San Diego, 20–23 Feb 2013 Smith R, Patel V, Chauhan S, Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: outcomes measures and curriculum development. NextMED/MMVR 20; San Diego, 20–23 Feb 2013
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Hashimoto DA, Gomez ED, Danzer E, Edelson PK, Morris JB, Williams NN, Dumon KR (2012) Intraoperative resident education for robotic laparoscopic gastric banding surgery: a pilot study on the safety of stepwise education. J Am Coll Surg 214:990–996PubMedCrossRef Hashimoto DA, Gomez ED, Danzer E, Edelson PK, Morris JB, Williams NN, Dumon KR (2012) Intraoperative resident education for robotic laparoscopic gastric banding surgery: a pilot study on the safety of stepwise education. J Am Coll Surg 214:990–996PubMedCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2024-7 PubMed Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg. doi:10.​1007/​s00268-013-2024-7 PubMed
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc 26:1–11PubMedCrossRef Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc 26:1–11PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Scott DJ (2011) Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 25:2141–2146PubMedCrossRef Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Scott DJ (2011) Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 25:2141–2146PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start
verfasst von
Blair A. Wormer
Kristian T. Dacey
Kristopher B. Williams
Joel F. Bradley III
Amanda L. Walters
Vedra A. Augenstein
Dimitrios Stefanidis
B. Todd Heniford
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2014
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3239-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2014

Surgical Endoscopy 3/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.