The centralization of robotic surgery in high-volume centers for endometrial cancer patients - A study of 6560 cases in the U.S.

Gynecologic Oncology

Volumn 138, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 128-132

  Chan, John K ^a   Gardner, Austin B ^b   Taylor, Katie ^a   Blansit, Kevin ^b,c   Thompson, Caroline A ^b   Brooks, Rebecca ^d   Yu, Xinhua ^e   Kapp, Daniel S ^f  

^a PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION   (United States)

^b PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

^f STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Centralization; Endometrial cancer; High volume hospitals; Laparoscopic surgery; Race and socioeconomic factors; Robotic surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASIAN; BLACK PERSON; CANCER CENTER; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURGERY; CAUCASIAN; CENTRALIZATION; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; FEMALE; HISPANIC; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAID; MEDICALLY UNINSURED; MEDICARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SOCIAL STATUS; UNITED STATES; AFRICAN AMERICAN; ASIAN AMERICAN; ECONOMICS; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; ETHNOLOGY; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; MIDDLE AGED; ROBOTICS; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICANS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ASIAN AMERICANS; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HISPANIC AMERICANS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; ROBOTICS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84931573019     PISSN: 00908258     EISSN: 10956859     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.031     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. R. Siegel, D. Naishadham, and A. Jemal Cancer statistics, 2012 CA Cancer J. Clin. 62 1 2012 10 29
2. L. Weinberg, S. Rao, and P.F. Escobar Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review Obstet. Gynecol. Int. 2011 2011 852061
3. J.D. Wright, W.M. Burke, E.T. Wilde, S.N. Lewin, A.S. Charles, and J.H. Kim Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 30 8 2012 783 791
4. C. Tsui, R. Klein, and M. Garabrant Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy Surg Endosc 27 7 2013 2253 2257
5. C. Camberlin, A. Senn, M. Leys, and C. De Laet Robot-Assisted Surgery: Health Technology Assessment 2009 Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center (KCE) Belgium
6. M.C. Bell, J. Torgerson, U. Seshadri-Kreaden, A.W. Suttle, and S. Hunt Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques Gynecol. Oncol. 111 3 2008 407 411
7. M. Reza, S. Maeso, J.A. Blasco, and E. Andradas Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery Br. J. Surg. 97 12 2010 1772 1783
8. R.E. Bristow, M.L. Zahurak, T.P. Diaz-Montes, R.L. Giuntoli, and D.K. Armstrong Impact of surgeon and hospital ovarian cancer surgical case volume on in-hospital mortality and related short-term outcomes Gynecol. Oncol. 115 3 2009 334 338
9. D.W. Borowski, D.M. Bradburn, S.J. Mills, B. Bharathan, R.G. Wilson, and A.A. Ratcliffe Volume-outcome analysis of colorectal cancer-related outcomes Br. J. Surg. 97 9 2010 1416 1430
10. E.K. Mayer, S. Purkayastha, T. Athanasiou, A. Darzi, and J.A. Vale Assessing the quality of the volume-outcome relationship in uro-oncology BJU Int. 103 3 2009 341 349
11. G.A. Gooiker, V.E. Lemmens, M.G. Besselink, O.R. Busch, B.A. Bonsing, and I.Q. Molenaar Impact of centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery on resection rates and survival Br. J. Surg. 101 8 2014 1000 1005
12. S.L. Chang, A.S. Kibel, J.D. Brooks, and B.I. Chung The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA BJU Int. 2014 Jun 23 [Epub ahead of print]
13. H.Y. Yu, N.D. Hevelone, S.R. Lipsitz, K.J. Kowalczyk, P.L. Nguyen, and J.C. Hu Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy J. Urol. 187 5 2012 1632 1637
14. J.D. Wright, C.V. Ananth, A.I. Tergas, T.J. Herzog, W.M. Burke, and S.N. Lewin An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy Obstet. Gynecol. 123 5 2014 1038 1048
15. G. Parham, J.L. Phillips, M.L. Hicks, N. Andrews, W.B. Jones, and H.M. Shingleton The National Cancer Data Base report on malignant epithelial ovarian carcinoma in African-American women Cancer 80 4 1997 816 826
16. E.R. Kokoska, T.M. Bird, J.M. Robbins, S.D. Smith, J.M. Corsi, and B.T. Campbell Racial disparities in the management of pediatric appendicitis J. Surg. Res. 137 1 2007 83 88
17. M. Salman, T. Bell, J. Martin, K. Bhuva, R. Grim, and V. Ahuja Use, cost, complications, and mortality of robotic versus nonrobotic general surgery procedures based on a nationwide database Am. Surg. 79 6 2013 553 560
18. S.P. Kim, S.A. Boorjian, N.D. Shah, C.J. Weight, J.C. Tilburt, and L.C. Han Disparities in access to hospitals with robotic surgery for patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy J. Urol. 189 2 2013 514 520
19. X. Yu, D. Lum, T.K. Kiet, K.C. Fuh, J. Orr Jr., and R.A. Brooks Utilization of and charges for robotic versus laparoscopic versus open surgery for endometrial cancer J. Surg. Oncol. 107 6 2013 653 658
20. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Available from: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp 2013
21. S. van Buuren Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification Stat. Methods Med. Res. 16 3 2007 219 242
22. S. van Buuren Flexible Imputation of Missing Data 2012 Chapman and Hall/CRC (Boca Raton. FL)
23. J. Barnard, and D.B. Rubin Small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputation Biometrika 86 1999 948 955
24. S. van Buuren, and K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn MICE: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R J. Stat. Softw. 45 3 2011 1 67
25. K.B. Stitzenberg, Y.N. Wong, M.E. Nielsen, B.L. Egleston, and R.G. Uzzo Trends in radical prostatectomy: centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care Cancer 118 1 2012 54 62
26. M. Mabrouk, M. Frumovitz, M. Greer, S. Sharma, K.M. Schmeler, and P.T. Soliman Trends in laparoscopic and robotic surgery among gynecologic oncologists: a survey update Gynecol. Oncol. 112 3 2009 501 505
27. A.C. Fleury, O.A. Ibeanu, and R.E. Bristow Racial disparities in surgical care for uterine cancer Gynecol. Oncol. 121 3 2011 571 576
28. P.R. Patel, J. Lee, A.M. Rodriguez, M.A. Borahay, R.R. Snyder, and G.D. Hankins Disparities in use of laparoscopic hysterectomies: a nationwide analysis J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 21 2 2014 223 227
29. M.D. Hofer, J.J. Meeks, J. Cashy, S. Kundu, and L.C. Zhao Impact of increasing prevalence of minimally invasive prostatectomy on open prostatectomy observed in the national inpatient sample and national surgical quality improvement program J. Endourol. 27 1 2013 102 107
30. M. Terplan, S. Temkin, A. Tergas, and E. Lengyel Does equal treatment yield equal outcomes? The impact of race on survival in epithelial ovarian cancer Gynecol. Oncol. 111 2 2008 173 178
31. S. Sukumar, M. Sun, P.I. Karakiewicz, A.A. Friedman, F.K. Chun, and J. Sammon National trends and disparities in the use of minimally invasive adult pyeloplasty J. Urol. 188 3 2012 913 918
32. M.F. Monn, C.D. Bahler, E.B. Schneider, and C.P. Sundaram Emerging trends in robotic pyeloplasty for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults J. Urol. 189 4 2013 1352 1357