Does adoption of new technology increase surgical volume? The robotic inguinal hernia repair model

Journal of Robotic Surgery - Tập 16 - Trang 833-839 - 2021
Tara M. Barry1, Haroon Janjua1, Christopher DuCoin1, Emanuel Eguia2, Paul C. Kuo1
1Department of Surgery, USF Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA
2Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, USA

Tóm tắt

Robotic Inguinal Hernia repair has been associated with higher costs but shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery is an appealing option for patients undergoing elective hernia surgery however given the high startup, maintenance and operating costs, the adoption of robotic technology may not guarantee increased profitability. Our hypothesis is that the introduction of robotic technology increases the overall surgical volume of inguinal hernia repairs within a hospital as compared to non-robotic hospitals. The 2010–2018 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Ambulatory Patient data were queried for Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic inguinal hernia repairs using ICD9, ICD10 and CPT codes. Using a difference in difference (DID) technique, we determined the difference of the total hernia volume of robotic hospitals pre- and post-adoption of robotic technology. In addition, selected hospitals which were early adopters of robotic technology were compared to with their surrounding non-robotic competitor hospitals. Incident Rate Ratios—IRR, from the difference in difference analysis determined the significance of robotic technology. Hospital and patient demographic data were evaluated, and chi square test were used to determine statistical significance. p < 0.05 was considered significant. There were a total of 258,785 inguinal hernia repairs (5774 Robotic, 88,265 Laparoscopic and 164,746 Open) performed at 398 hospitals, 94 of which had robotic capabilities. Of all the procedure types, around 90% were primary inguinal hernia repairs. The majority of patients in this cohort were white non-Hispanic or Latino males (85%, 84%, 92%), age group 51–70 (46%), holding commercial health insurance (43%) and belonged to the lowest Charlson comorbidity index level (82%). Facility types designation for almost all robotic hospitals was hospital (99%), whereas 65% of non-robotic hospitals were ambulatory surgery centers and all other hospitals. Robotic hospitals experienced a 9.5% increase in total volume of inguinal hernia repairs after introduction of robotic technology (Incident Rate Ratios—IRR 1.095, p value < 0.0001). A significant increase in total hernia volume was observed for the early adopter hospitals with the IRR(s) ranging 1.20–2.51 (all p values < 0.0001), implying that adoption of robotic technology can in fact lead to very significant increase in total hernia volume for a hospital. The introduction of robotic technology leads to an increase in the overall volume of inguinal hernia repairs performed at a given hospital. To further evaluate the impact of robotic technology and significance of this methodology, additional work is underway using additional procedures and data from other states.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Khorgami Z, Li WT, Jackson TN, Howard CA, Sclabas GM (2019) The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc 33(7):2217–2221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6507-3 (Epub 2018/10/18 PubMed PMID: 30327915) Janjua H, Cousin-Peterson E, Barry TM, Kuo MC, Baker MS, Kuo PC (2020) The paradox of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair in the inpatient setting. Am J Surg 219(3):497–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.012 (Epub 2019/09/29 PubMed PMID: 31558306) Rana G, Armijo PR, Khan S, Bills N, Morien M, Zhang J et al (2020) Outcomes and impact of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus open inguinal hernia repair on healthcare spending and employee absenteeism. Surg Endosc 34(2):821–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06835-6 (Epub 2019/05/30 PubMed PMID: 31139991) Janjua H, Cousin-Peterson E, Barry TM, Kuo MC, Baker MS, Kuo PC (2020) Robotic approach to outpatient inguinal hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 231(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.04.031 (Epub 2020/05/08 PubMed PMID: 32380165) Porter ME (1985) Competitive Advantage, Ch. 1. The Free Press, New York, pp 11–15 [dataset] Ambulatory Patient Data File Agency for Health Care Administration State of Florida; 2010–2018 Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3(1):e1918911. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911 (Epub 2020/01/11 PubMed PMID: 31922557; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6991252) Moloney R, O’Brien B, Coffey JC, Coffey A, Murphy F (2020) Patients’ perceptions after robot-assisted surgery: an integrative review. AORN J 112(2):133–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13104 (Epub 2020/07/28 PubMed PMID: 32716545) Bittner Iv JG, Cesnik LW, Kirwan T, Wolf L, Guo D (2018) Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches. J Robot Surg 12(4):625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0790-9 (Epub 2018/02/18 PubMed PMID: 29453731; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6223756) Amodeo A, Linares Quevedo A, Joseph JV, Belgrano E, Patel HR (2009) Robotic laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Minerva Urol Nefrol 61(2):121–128 (Epub 2009/05/20 PubMed PMID: 19451894) Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M (2018) Estimation of the acquisition and operating costs for robotic surgery. JAMA 320(8):835–836. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.9219