Skip to main content
Log in

Socioeconomic factors and parity of access to robotic surgery in a county health system

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Equal access to novel surgical technologies remains a policy concern as hospitals adopt robotic surgery with increasing prevalence. This study sought to determine whether socioeconomic factors influence access to robotic surgery. All laparoscopic and robotic fundoplications and paraesophageal hernia repairs performed by a surgical group over 6 years at a county and two neighboring private hospitals were identified. Robotic use by hospital setting, age, gender, reported ethnicity, estimated income, insurance payer, and diagnosis were examined. Of 418 patients identified, 180 (43%) presented to the county hospital, where subjects were younger (51.1 versus 56.2 years, p < 0.001) with lower estimated income ($50,289 versus $62,959, p < 0.001). In the county setting, there was no difference in reported ethnicity (p = 0.169), estimated income (p = 0.081), or insurance payer (p = 0.535) between groups treated laparoscopically versus robotically. There was no difference in the treatment groups by estimated income in the private hospital setting (p = 0.308). Overall higher estimated income and insurance payer were associated with a higher chance of undergoing robotic procedures (p < 0.001). Presence of a paraesophageal hernia was associated with increased chance of undergoing robotic therapy in all comparisons (p < 0.001). No disparity in access to robotic surgery offered in the county hospital was observed based on age, gender, reported ethnicity, estimated income, or insurance payer. Patients with higher income and private insurers were more likely to present to the private hospital setting where robotics is utilized more often. The presence of a paraesophageal hernia was a significant factor in determining robotic therapy in both settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. United Stated Food and Drug Administration (2000) July 2000 510(k) clearances. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/510kClearances/ucm089428.htm. July; Accessed September 20, 2015

  2. 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 215:107–114 (discussion 114−106)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Villamere J, Gebhart A, Vu S, Nguyen NT (2015) Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers. Surg Endosc 29:1729–1736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hanly EJ, Talamini MA (2004) Robotic abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 188:19S–26S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 6:125–131

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen SL, Vitonis AF, Einarsson JI (2014) Updated hysterectomy surveillance and factors associated with minimally invasive hysterectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 18(3):pii: e2014.00096. doi:10.4293/JSLS.2014.00096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis BR, Yoo AC, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2014) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy: cost and clinical outcomes. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 18:211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Parsons JK, Messer K, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Chang D (2014) Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg 149:845–851

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Trinh QD, Schmitges J, Sun M, Sukumar S, Sammon J, Shariat SF, Jeldres C, Bianchi M, Tian Z, Perrotte P, Rogers CG, Graefen M, Peabody JO, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI (2012) Improvement of racial disparities with respect to the utilization of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in the United States. Cancer 118:1894–1900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Santry HP, Gillen DL, Lauderdale DS (2005) Trends in bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA 294:1909–1917

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. United States Census Bureau (2014) United States Census. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed September 2014

  13. Mack MJ (2001) Minimally invasive and robotic surgery. JAMA 285:568–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Blum CA, Adams DB (2011) Who did the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy? J Minim Access Surg 7:165–168

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Finlayson SR, Laycock WS, Birkmeyer JD (2003) National trends in utilization and outcomes of antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 17:864–867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Laine S, Rantala A, Gullichsen R, Ovaska J (1997) Laparoscopic vs conventional Nissen fundoplication. A prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 11:441–444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Bringman S, Ramel S, Sorasto A, Hulkko A (2000) Comparison of laparoscopic and open Nissen fundoplication 2 years after operation. A prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 14:1019–1023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Catarci M, Gentileschi P, Papi C, Carrara A, Marrese R, Gaspari AL, Grassi GB (2004) Evidence-based appraisal of antireflux fundoplication. Ann Surg 239:325–337

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Salminen P, Hurme S, Ovaska J (2012) Fifteen-year outcome of laparoscopic and open Nissen fundoplication: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Thorac Surg 93:228–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nishimura K (2015) Current status of robotic surgery in Japan. Korean J Urol 56:170–178

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Berguer R (1999) Surgery and ergonomics. Arch Surg 134:1011–1016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:234–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ogden CL, Lamb MM, Carroll MD, Flegal KM (2010) Obesity and socioeconomic status in adults: United States, 2005–2008. NCHS Data Brief 50:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pampel FC, Denney JT, Krueger PM (2012) Obesity, SES, and economic development: a test of the reversal hypothesis. Soc Sci Med 74:1073–1081

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Corley DA, Kubo A (2006) Body mass index and gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2619–2628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Iovino P, Angrisani L, Tremolaterra F, Nirchio E, Ciannella M, Borrelli V, Sabbatini F, Mazzacca G, Ciacci C (2002) Abnormal esophageal acid exposure is common in morbidly obese patients and improves after a successful Lap-band system implantation. Surg Endosc 16:1631–1635

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ayazi S, Hagen JA, Chan LS, DeMeester SR, Lin MW, Ayazi A, Leers JM, Oezcelik A, Banki F, Lipham JC, DeMeester TR, Crookes PF (2009) Obesity and gastroesophageal reflux: quantifying the association between body mass index, esophageal acid exposure, and lower esophageal sphincter status in a large series of patients with reflux symptoms. J Gastrointest Surg 13:1440–1447

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. El-Serag HB (2007) Time trends of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:17–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, Dent J (2014) Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 63:871–880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Drs. John Mark Bayouth, Daniel Ziegler, and Gerald Robert Stephenson for contributing data, and the Department of Surgery of John Peter Smith Hospital and Baylor University Medical Center for supporting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leah Carey Tatebe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. L Tatebe, Ms. Gray, Dr. K Tatebe, and Dr. Putty declare that they have no conflict of interest. Dr. Garcia reports non-financial support from Intuitive Surgical unrelated to the submitted work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tatebe, L.C., Gray, R., Tatebe, K. et al. Socioeconomic factors and parity of access to robotic surgery in a county health system. J Robotic Surg 12, 35–41 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0683-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0683-3

Keywords

Navigation