Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29067427›Full record

ArticleJAMA2017

Association of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy With Perioperative Outcomes and Health Care Costs, 2003 to 2015.

In Gab Jeong, Yash S Khandwala, Jae Heon Kim, Deok Hyun Han, Shufeng Li, Ye Wang, Steven L Chang, Benjamin I Chung

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
16.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

103 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 230 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

In Gab JeongDepartment of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Yash S KhandwalaDepartment of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Jae Heon KimDepartment of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Deok Hyun HanDepartment of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Shufeng LiDepartment of Urology and Dermatology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Ye WangCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Steven L ChangDivision of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Benjamin I ChungDepartment of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Stanford University · USStanford Medicine · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceUse of robotic surgery has increased in urological practice over the last decade. However, the use, outcomes, and costs of robotic nephrectomy are unknown.

objectivesTo examine the trend in use of robotic-assisted operations for radical nephrectomy in the United States and to compare the perioperative outcomes and costs with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis retrospective cohort study used the Premier Healthcare database to evaluate outcomes of patients who had undergone robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal mass at 416 US hospitals between January 2003 and September 2015. Multivariable regression modeling was used to assess outcomes. EXPOSURES: Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome of the study was the trend in use of robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. The secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, based on the Clavien classification system, and defined as any complication (Clavien grades 1-5) or major complications (Clavien grades 3-5, for which grade 5 results in death); resource use (operating time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay); and direct hospital cost.

resultsAmong 23 753 patients included in the study (mean age, 61.4 years; men, 13 792 [58.1%]), 18 573 underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and 5180 underwent robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. Use of robotic-assisted surgery increased from 1.5% (39 of 2676 radical nephrectomy procedures in 2003) to 27.0% (862 of 3194 radical nephrectomy procedures) in 2015 (P for trend <.001). In the weighted-adjusted analysis, there were no significant differences between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in the incidence of any (Clavien grades 1-5) postoperative complications (adjusted rates, 22.2% vs 23.4%, difference, -1.2%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 3.0%) or major (Clavien grades 3-5) complications (adjusted rates, 3.5% vs 3.8%, difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 0.5%). The rate of prolonged operating time (>4 hours) for patients undergoing the robotic-assisted procedure was higher than for patients receiving the laparoscopic procedure in the adjusted analysis (46.3% vs 25.8%; risk difference, 20.5%; 95% CI, 14.2% to 26.8%). Robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with higher mean 90-day direct hospital costs ($19 530 vs $16 851; difference, $2678; 95% CI, $838 to $4519), mainly accounted for operating room ($7217 vs $5378; difference, $1839; 95% CI, $1050 to $2628) and supply costs ($4876 vs $3891; difference, $985; 95% CI, $473 to $1498). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal mass between 2003 and 2015, the use of robotic-assisted surgery increased substantially. The use of robotic-assistance was not associated with increased risk of any or major complications but was associated with prolonged operating time and higher hospital costs compared with laparoscopic surgery.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHospital CostsHumansKidney DiseasesLaparoscopyLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNephrectomyOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29067427
PMCPMC5818800
OpenAlexW2766292602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.