Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

Results

Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84–0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38–1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71–0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77–0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62–0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71–0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62–0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43–0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21–0.39).

Conclusion

When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Graphical Abstract

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abu Gazala M, Wexner SD (2017) Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep 5:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/gox001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Osagiede O, Spaulding AC, Cochuyt JJ, Naessens J, Merchea A, Colibaseanu DT (2019) Disparities in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Florida. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 29:926–933. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2019.0016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Keller DS, Delaney CP, Hashemi L, Haas EM (2016) A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30:4220–4228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4732-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hollis RH, Cannon JA, Singletary BA, Korb ML, Hawn MT, Heslin MJ (2016) Understanding the value of both laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared to the open approach in colorectal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:850–856. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2015.0620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Papanikolaou IG (2014) Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic review of the literature. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 24:478–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sheng S, Zhao T, Wang X (2018) Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis. Med (Baltimore) 97:e11817. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Prete FP, Pezzolla A, Prete F, Testini M, Marzaioli R, Patriti A, Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Gurrado A, Strippoli GFM (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 267:1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, Hur H, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim H (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1480–1487. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0435-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Panteleimonitis S, Pickering O, Abbas H, Harper M, Kandala N, Figueiredo N, Qureshi T, Parvaiz A (2018) Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study. Int J Colorectal Dis 33:1079–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-3030-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Waters PS, Cheung FP, Peacock O, Heriot AG, Warrier SK, O’Riordain DS, Pillinger S, Lynch AC, Stevenson ARL (2020) Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer—a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 22:488–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:479–484. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Starkweather AR, Witek-Janusek L, Nockels RP, Peterson J, Mathews HL (2008) The multiple benefits of minimally invasive spinal surgery: results comparing transformational lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar fusion. J Neurosci Nurs 40:32–39

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Whitecloud TS, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE (2001) Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior–posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord 14:100–103. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200104000-00002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18:816–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2469-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kivimäki M, Batty GD, Pentti J, Shipley MJ, Sipilä PN, Nyberg ST, Suominen SB, Oksanen T, Stenholm S, Virtanen M, Marmot MG, Singh-Manoux A, Brunner EJ, Lindbohm JV, Ferrie JE, Vahtera J (2020) Association between socioeconomic status and the development of mental and physical health conditions in adulthood: a multi-cohort study. Lancet Public Health 5:e140–e149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30248-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vukojević M (2017) Parental socioeconomic status as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes in children—literature review. Acta Clin Croat. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2017.56.04.23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Akinyemiju T, Meng Q, Vin-Raviv N (2016) Race/ethnicity and socio-economic differences in colorectal cancer surgery outcomes: analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample. BMC Cancer 16:715. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2738-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Robinson CN, Balentine CJ, Sansgiry S, Berger DH (2012) Disparities in the use of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal disease. J Gastrointest Surg 16:897–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1844-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Koerner C, Rosen SA (2019) How robotics is changing and will change the field of colorectal surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 11:381–387. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v11.i10.381

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Wei D, Johnston S, Goldstein L, Nagle D (2020) Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with reduced risk of anastomotic leak and other major perioperative complications and reduced hospital resource utilization as compared with open surgery: a retrospective population-based study of comparative effectiveness and trends of surgical approach. Surg Endosc 34:610–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06805-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, Rothstein HR (2021) Introduction to meta-analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Drukker M, Weltens I, van Hooijdonk CFM, Vandenberk E, Bak M (2021) Development of a methodological quality criteria list for observational studies: the observational study quality evaluation. Front Res Metr Anal 6:675071. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.675071

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jackson D, Turner R (2017) Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis: power analysis for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 8:290–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1240

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanner-Smith EE, Tipton E, Polanin JR (2016) Handling complex meta-analytic data structures using robust variance estimates: a tutorial in R. J Dev Life-Course Criminol 2:85–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-016-0026-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vevea JL, Coburn K, Sutton A (2019) Publication bias. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (eds) The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage, pp 383–429

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. RStudio Team (2020) RStudio: integrated development environment for R

  30. Cairns AL, Schlottmann F, Strassle PD, Di Corpo M, Patti MG (2019) Racial and socioeconomic disparities in the surgical management and outcomes of patients with colorectal carcinoma. World J Surg 43:1342–1350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-04898-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hawkins AT, Ford MM, Benjamin Hopkins M, Muldoon RL, Wanderer JP, Parikh AA, Geiger TM (2018) Barriers to laparoscopic colon resection for cancer: a national analysis. Surg Endosc 32:1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5782-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Damle RN, Flahive JM, Davids JS, Maykel JA, Sturrock PR, Alavi K (2016) Examination of racial disparities in the receipt of minimally invasive surgery among a national cohort of adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 59:1055–1062. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gabriel E, Thirunavukarasu P, Al-Sukhni E, Attwood K, Nurkin SJ (2016) National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 30:1060–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4296-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Abd El Aziz MA, Grass F, Perry W, Behm KT, Shawki SF, Larson DW, Mathis KL (2020) Colectomy for patients with super obesity: current practice and surgical morbidity in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis 16:1764–1769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2020.06.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Addae JK, Gani F, Fang SY, Wick EC, Althumairi AA, Efron JE, Canner JK, Euhus DM, Schneider EB (2017) A comparison of trends in operative approach and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer surgery. J Surg Res 208:111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.09.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Alharthi S, Reilly M, Arishi A, Ahmed AM, Chulkov M, Qu W, Ortiz J, Nazzal M, Pannell S (2020) Robotic versus laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: analysis of healthcare cost and utilization project database. Am Surg 86:256–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/000313482008600337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bell SW, Heriot AG, Warrier SK, Farmer CK, Stevenson ARL, Bissett I, Kong JC, Solomon M (2019) Surgical techniques in the management of rectal cancer: a modified Delphi method by colorectal surgeons in Australia and New Zealand. Tech Coloproctology 23:743–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02052-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chung G, Hinoul P, Coplan P, Yoo A (2021) Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery in prostate, uterus, and colorectal procedures: a retrospective population-based study. J Robot Surg 15:275–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01102-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Concors SJ, Murken DR, Hernandez PT, Mahmoud NN, Paulson EC (2020) The volume–outcome relationship in robotic protectectomy: does center volume matter? results of a national cohort study. Surg Endosc 34:4472–4480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07227-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fantus RJ, Cohen A, Riedinger CB, Kuchta K, Wang CH, Yao K, Park S (2019) Facility-level analysis of robot utilization across disciplines in the National Cancer Database. J Robot Surg 13:293–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0855-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fernandez R, Anaya DA, Li LT, Orcutt ST, Balentine CJ, Awad SA, Berger DH, Albo DA, Artinyan A (2013) Laparoscopic versus robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer in a veteran population. Am J Surg 206:509–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.01.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 37:2782–2790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2024-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Konstantinidis IT, Ituarte P, Woo Y, Warner SG, Melstrom K, Kim J, Singh G, Lee B, Fong Y, Melstrom LG (2020) Trends and outcomes of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in the USA: maintaining perioperative and oncologic safety. Surg Endosc 34:4932–4942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07284-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee MTG, Chiu CC, Wang CC, Chang CN, Lee SH, Lee M, Hsu TC, Lee CC (2017) Trends and outcomes of surgical treatment for colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2012- an analysis using National Inpatient Database. Sci Rep 7:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02224-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lo BD, Zhang GQ, Stem M, Sahyoun R, Efron JE, Safar B, Atallah C (2021) Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care? Surg Endosc 35:3774–3786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07870-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Miller PE, Dao H, Paluvoi N, Bailey M, Margolin D, Shah N, Vargas HD (2016) Comparison of 30-day postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic vs robotic colectomy. J Am Coll Surg 223:369–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.03.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mirkin KA, Kulaylat AS, Hollenbeak CS, Messaris E (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for stage I-III colon cancer: oncologic and long-term survival outcomes. Surg Endosc 32:2894–2901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5999-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Phelan M, Smith BR, Stamos MJ (2015) Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic abdominoperineal resections in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 58:1123–1129. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ofshteyn A, Bingmer K, Towe CW, Steinhagen E, Stein SL (2020) Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer in the US: a skewed population. Surg Endosc 34:2651–2656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07041-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Panteleimonitis S, Popeskou S, Harper M, Kandala N, Figueiredo N, Qureshi T, Parvaiz A (2018) Minimally invasive colorectal surgery in the morbid obese: does size really matter? Surg Endosc 32:3486–3494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6068-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Parascandola SA, Hota S, Sparks AD, Boulos S, Cavallo K, Kim G, Obias V (2021) Trends in utilization, conversion rates, and outcomes for minimally invasive approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer: a national cancer database analysis. Surg Endosc 35:3154–3165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07756-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sastow DL, White RS, Mauer E, Chen Y, Gaber-Baylis LK, Turnbull ZA (2019) The disparity of care and outcomes for medicaid patients undergoing colectomy. J Surg Res 235:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Schootman M, Hendren S, Loux T, Ratnapradipa K, Eberth JM, Davidson NO (2017) Differences in effectiveness and use of robotic surgery in patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 21:1296–1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3460-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Simon HL, Reif de Paula T, Spigel ZA, Keller DS (2021) National disparities in use of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Spaulding AC, Hamadi H, Osagiede O, Lemini R, Cochuyt JJ, Watson J, Naessens JM, Colibaseanu DT (2021) Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care. J Robot Surg 15:561–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01142-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Sujatha-Bhaskar S, Jafari MD, Gahagan JV, Inaba CS, Koh CY, Mills SD, Carmichael JC, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2017) Defining the role of minimally invasive proctectomy for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 266:574–581. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Villano AM, Zeymo A, Houlihan BK, Bayasi M, Al-Refaie WB, Chan KS (2020) Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: hospital type drives utilization and outcomes. J Surg Res 247:180–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.07.102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Yeo HL, Isaacs AJ, Abelson JS, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A (2016) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies using a large national database: outcomes and trends related to surgery center volume. Dis Colon Rectum 59:535–542. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Buonpane C, Efiong E, Hunsinger M, Fluck M, Shabahang M, Wild J, Halm K, Long K, Buzas C, Blansfield J (2017) Predictors of utilization and quality assessment in robotic rectal cancer resection: a review of the National Cancer Database. Am Surg 83:918–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/000313481708300847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Veenhof AAFA, Engel AF, van der Peet DL, Sietses C, Meijerink WJHJ, de Lange-de Klerk ESM, Cuesta MA (2008) Technical difficulty grade score for the laparoscopic approach of rectal cancer: a single institution pilot study. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:469–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-007-0433-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Ogiso S, Yamaguchi T, Hata H, Fukuda M, Ikai I, Yamato T, Sakai Y (2011) Evaluation of factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: “narrow pelvis” is not a contraindication. Surg Endosc 25:1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1485-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Fleming CA, Cullinane C, Lynch N, Killeen S, Coffey JC, Peirce CB (2021) Urogenital function following robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: meta-analysis. Br J Surg 108:128–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaa067

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY, Yang CS, Lee HJ (2018) The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery. Colorectal Dis 20:O103–O113. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14051

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kim NK, Kim YW, Cho MS (2015) Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with emphasis on pelvic autonomic nerve preservation: expert technical tips for robotic surgery. Surg Oncol 24:172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2015.06.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wood KL, Haider SF, Bui A, Leitman IM (2020) Access to common laparoscopic general surgical procedures: do racial disparities exist? Surg Endosc 34:1376–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06912-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Schneider MA, Gero D, Müller M, Horisberger K, Rickenbacher A, Turina M (2021) Inequalities in access to minimally invasive general surgery: a comprehensive nationwide analysis across 20 years. Surg Endosc 35:6227–6243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08123-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ramji KM, Cleghorn MC, Josse JM, MacNeill A, O’Brien C, Urbach D, Quereshy FA (2016) Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between robotic, laparoscopic, and open rectal cancer surgery: early experience at a tertiary care center. Surg Endosc 30:1337–1343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4390-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hah JM, Lee E, Shrestha R, Pirrotta L, Huddleston J, Goodman S, Amanatullah DF, Dirbas FM, Carroll IR, Schofield D (2021) Return to work and productivity loss after surgery: a health economic evaluation. Int J Surg 95:106100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Wright JP, Albert MR (2020) A current review of robotic colorectal surgery. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg 5:9. https://doi.org/10.21037/ales.2019.12.01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hopkins MB, Geiger TM, Bethurum AJ, Ford MM, Muldoon RL, Beck DE, Stewart TG, Hawkins AT (2020) Comparing pathologic outcomes for robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer resection: a propensity adjusted analysis of 7616 patients. Surg Endosc 34:2613–2622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07032-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Gorodner V, Ayloo SM, Elli EF, Oberholzer J, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC (2012) Perioperative risk assessment in robotic general surgery: lessons learned from 884 cases at a single institution. Arch Surg 147:701–708. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kirchhoff P, Clavien P-A, Hahnloser D (2010) Complications in colorectal surgery: risk factors and preventive strategies. Patient Saf Surg 4:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-4-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Schneider EB, Hyder O, Brooke BS, Efron J, Cameron JL, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Wolfgang CL, Pawlik TM (2012) Patient readmission and mortality after colorectal surgery for colon cancer: impact of length of stay relative to other clinical factors. J Am Coll Surg 214:390–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend gratitude to Eleanor Mayfield, ELS, for editorial support.

Funding

This research was supported by 5 For The Fight, Huntsman Cancer Institute, the Medical College of Wisconsin, and the V Foundation for Cancer Research; by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)—an entity of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—under Grant K01CA234319; and by the Research Foundation of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Dana M. Hayden MD, MPH, FACS, FASCRS, Abigail M. Martin BA & Chassidy Grimes MD

  2. Institute for Health and Equity, Medical College of Wisconsin, 1000 N. 92nd St, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA

    Kevin M. Korous PhD, MS & Charles R. Rogers PhD, MPH, MS, MCHES

  3. University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Salt Lake, UT, USA

    Ellen Brooks MPH & Fa Tuuhetaufa BS

  4. Atlanta, GA, USA

    Erin M. King-Mullins MD, FACS, FASCRS

Authors
  1. Dana M. Hayden MD, MPH, FACS, FASCRS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin M. Korous PhD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ellen Brooks MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fa Tuuhetaufa BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erin M. King-Mullins MD, FACS, FASCRS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abigail M. Martin BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chassidy Grimes MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Charles R. Rogers PhD, MPH, MS, MCHES
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles R. Rogers PhD, MPH, MS, MCHES.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Although unrelated to this study, Charles Rogers offers scientific input to research studies through an investigator services agreement with Exact Sciences, and Erin King-Mullins offers input as an Educational Consultant for THD America. Dana Hayden, Kevin Korous, Erin Brooks, Fa Tuuhetaufa, Abigail Martin, and Chassidy Grimes, have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 kb)—PRISMA 2020 item checklist.docx

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 53 kb)—List of full-texts reviewed.docx

Supplementary file3 (DOCX 21 kb)—Summary of study characteristics across the 29 included studies.docx

464_2022_9793_MOESM4_ESM.docx

Supplementary file4 (DOCX 20 kb)—Summary of qualitative synthesis findings by each factor across the 29 included studies.docx

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayden, D.M., Korous, K.M., Brooks, E. et al. Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 37, 3306–3320 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09793-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09793-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation