Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128930›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2019

The acceptance and adoption of transoral robotic surgery in Australia and New Zealand.

Giri Krishnan, Jack Mintz, Andrew Foreman, J C Hodge, Suren Krishnan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Robotic surgery utilisation and uptake.Irish journal of medical science · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Morbidity and Mortality Following Transoral Robotic Surgery, a Prospective Single Centre Study.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022
    Article
  9. Acceptance and adoption of transoral robotic surgery in Germany.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Article
  10. Acceptance of patients towards task-autonomous robotic cochlear implantation: An exploratory study.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Giri KrishnanDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck surgery, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. sgirikrishnan@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4196-9155
Jack MintzDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck surgery, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Andrew ForemanDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck surgery, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
J C HodgeDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck surgery, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Suren KrishnanDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck surgery, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Royal Adelaide Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) provides improved access to head and neck subsites resulting in well-validated functional and oncological outcomes, but access to and cost of robotic platforms can limit their use. Evidence suggests TORS is increasingly being adopted globally, but there is a paucity of data on the adoption and diffusion of TORS in Australia and New Zealand. A cross-sectional analysis was performed. An online survey was distributed to otolaryngologists and head and neck surgeons through three different Australian and New Zealand specialty membership databases. A 5-point Likert scale based on a Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model was incorporated to assess barriers and facilitators to adoption. 77 respondents completed the survey. 43.6% of head and neck surgeons had performed TORS. The most common cases were lateral oropharyngectomy (35.9%), base of tongue resection (33.3%), tongue base mucosectomy (28.2%), supraglottic laryngectomy (15.4%) and TORS for obstructive sleep apnoea (12.8%). Perceived barriers to adoption were high costs, access to and availability of the robotic platform and limited training opportunities. This study provides evidence of adoption of TORS in Australia and New Zealand; however, there is a perception that significant barriers to adoption persist. Results from this study may help guide decisions on how we train and license surgeons in the era of this technology.

Indexed as

OtolaryngologistsSurgeonsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansLaryngectomyMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNew ZealandPharyngectomyProcedures and Techniques UtilizationHead and neck neoplasmsMinimally invasive surgical proceduresOtorhinolaryngologic surgical proceduresRoboticsSurvey methodology

Identifiers

PMID30128930
OpenAlexW2888241996

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.