Cargando…
Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
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 u...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Medical Association
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512167/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37728932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389 |
_version_ | 1785108300918947840 |
---|---|
author | Kalata, Stanley Thumma, Jyothi R. Norton, Edward C. Dimick, Justin B. Sheetz, Kyle H. |
author_facet | Kalata, Stanley Thumma, Jyothi R. Norton, Edward C. Dimick, Justin B. Sheetz, Kyle H. |
author_sort | Kalata, Stanley |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10512167 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | American Medical Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105121672023-09-22 Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Kalata, Stanley Thumma, Jyothi R. Norton, Edward C. Dimick, Justin B. Sheetz, Kyle H. JAMA Surg Original Investigation 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. American Medical Association 2023-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10512167/ /pubmed/37728932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389 Text en Copyright 2023 Kalata S et al. JAMA Surgery. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Kalata, Stanley Thumma, Jyothi R. Norton, Edward C. Dimick, Justin B. Sheetz, Kyle H. Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title | Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_full | Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_fullStr | Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_short | Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_sort | comparative safety of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512167/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37728932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kalatastanley comparativesafetyofroboticassistedvslaparoscopiccholecystectomy AT thummajyothir comparativesafetyofroboticassistedvslaparoscopiccholecystectomy AT nortonedwardc comparativesafetyofroboticassistedvslaparoscopiccholecystectomy AT dimickjustinb comparativesafetyofroboticassistedvslaparoscopiccholecystectomy AT sheetzkyleh comparativesafetyofroboticassistedvslaparoscopiccholecystectomy |