5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

      research-article
      , MD, MS 1 , 2 , , , MPH 2 , , PhD 3 , 4 , , MD 1 , 2 , 5 , , MD, MS 6
      JAMA Surgery
      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.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the utilization rates and comparative safety outcomes of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy across the United States?

          Findings

          This cohort study of claims data for Medicare beneficiaries identified 1 026 088 who underwent a cholecystectomy from 2010 through 2019. Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy rates increased 37-fold, and this procedure was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (0.7% vs 0.2%).

          Meaning

          In the absence of other advantages over an already minimally invasive procedure, the findings of this study call into question the role of the robotic platform for cholecystectomy.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is rapidly being adopted into practice, partly based on the belief that it offers specific technical and safety advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery. Whether robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is safer than laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains unclear.

          Objective

          To determine the uptake of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and to analyze its comparative safety vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This retrospective cohort study used Medicare administrative claims data for nonfederal acute care hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019. Participants included 1 026 088 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 to 99 years of age who underwent cholecystectomy with continuous Medicare coverage for 3 months before and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed August 17, 2022, to June 1, 2023.

          Exposure

          Surgical technique used to perform cholecystectomy: robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic approaches.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was rate of bile duct injury requiring definitive surgical reconstruction within 1 year after cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were composite outcome of bile duct injury requiring less-invasive postoperative surgical or endoscopic biliary interventions, and overall incidence of 30-day complications. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed adjusting for patient factors and clustered within hospital referral regions. An instrumental variable analysis was performed, leveraging regional variation in the adoption of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy within hospital referral regions over time, to account for potential confounding from unmeasured differences between treatment groups.

          Results

          A total of 1 026 088 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [12.0] years; 53.3% women) were included in the study. The use of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy increased 37-fold from 211 of 147 341 patients (0.1%) in 2010 to 6507 of 125 211 patients (5.2%) in 2019. Compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury necessitating a definitive operative repair within 1 year (0.7% vs 0.2%; relative risk [RR], 3.16 [95% CI, 2.57-3.75]). Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was also associated with a higher rate of postoperative biliary interventions, such as endoscopic stenting (7.4% vs 6.0%; RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.16-1.33]). There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complication rates between the 2 procedures. The instrumental variable analysis, which was designed to account for potential unmeasured differences in treatment groups, also showed that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury (0.4% vs 0.2%; RR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.14-2.63]).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This cohort study’s finding of significantly higher rates of bile duct injury with robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggests that the utility of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy should be reconsidered, given the existence of an already minimally invasive, predictably safe laparoscopic approach.

          Abstract

          This cohort study compares the rates and safety outcomes of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a nationally representative population of older adults.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

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

          Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.

          This study attempts to develop a comprehensive set of comorbidity measures for use with large administrative inpatient datasets. The study involved clinical and empirical review of comorbidity measures, development of a framework that attempts to segregate comorbidities from other aspects of the patient's condition, development of a comorbidity algorithm, and testing on heterogeneous and homogeneous patient groups. Data were drawn from all adult, nonmaternal inpatients from 438 acute care hospitals in California in 1992 (n = 1,779,167). Outcome measures were those commonly available in administrative data: length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital death. A comprehensive set of 30 comorbidity measures was developed. The comorbidities were associated with substantial increases in length of stay, hospital charges, and mortality both for heterogeneous and homogeneous disease groups. Several comorbidities are described that are important predictors of outcomes, yet commonly are not measured. These include mental disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, obesity, coagulopathy, weight loss, and fluid and electrolyte disorders. The comorbidities had independent effects on outcomes and probably should not be simplified as an index because they affect outcomes differently among different patient groups. The present method addresses some of the limitations of previous measures. It is based on a comprehensive approach to identifying comorbidities and separates them from the primary reason for hospitalization, resulting in an expanded set of comorbidities that easily is applied without further refinement to administrative data for a wide range of diseases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Comorbidity Measures for Use with Administrative Data

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

              Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Surg
                JAMA Surg
                JAMA Surgery
                American Medical Association
                2168-6254
                2168-6262
                20 September 2023
                December 2023
                20 September 2023
                : 158
                : 12
                : 1303-1310
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [2 ]Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [3 ]Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [4 ]Department of Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [5 ]Section Editor, JAMA Surgery
                [6 ]Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: June 10, 2023.
                Published Online: September 20, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Kalata S et al. JAMA Surgery.
                Corresponding Author: Stanley Kalata, MD, MS, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ( stkalata@ 123456med.umich.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Kalata and Sheetz had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Kalata, Dimick, Sheetz.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Kalata, Thumma, Dimick, Sheetz.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Thumma, Norton, Dimick, Sheetz.
                Statistical analysis: Thumma, Norton, Dimick, Sheetz.
                Obtained funding: Kalata, Dimick, Sheetz.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Dimick.
                Supervision: Dimick.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kalata reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Frederick A. Coller Surgical Society during the conduct of the study. 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 work was supported by grant R01-DK131584-01 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to Drs Sheetz and Dimick.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders 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; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: Dr Dimick is a section editor of JAMA Surgery, but he was not involved in any of the decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.
                Meeting Presentation: Some of the data in this article were presented at the 18th Annual Academic Surgical Congress; February 8, 2023; Houston, Texas.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                soi230063
                10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389
                10512167
                37728932
                b9f14568-2f1b-4853-94f5-d210e2bbe23b
                Copyright 2023 Kalata S et al. JAMA Surgery.

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

                History
                : 4 April 2023
                : 10 June 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online First

                Comments

                Comment on this article