Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31922557›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures.

Kyle H Sheetz, Jake Claflin, Justin B Dimick

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 439 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
439citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
79.4field-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

439 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 834 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
    Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kyle H SheetzDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Jake Claflincurrently a medical student at University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Justin B DimickDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Video Analysis for Ensuring Safer Diffusion of New ProceduresR01HS023597 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DIMICK, JUSTIN BRIGHAM · 2014 to 2014
$1.2M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS023597
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Increasing use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit is raising concern. Analyses of population-based trends in practice and how hospitals' acquisition of robotic surgical technologies is associated with their use are limited. Objective: To characterize trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used clinical registry data from Michigan from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018. Trends were characterized in the use of robotic surgery for common procedures for which traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery was already considered a safe and effective approach for most surgeons when clinically feasible. A multigroup interrupted time series analysis was performed to determine how procedural approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic) change after hospitals launch a robotic surgery program. Data were analyzed from March 1 through April 19, 2019. Exposures: Initiation of robotic surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Procedure approach (ie, robotic, open, or laparoscopic). Results: The study cohort included 169 404 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [16.9] years; 90 595 women [53.5%]) at 73 hospitals. The use of robotic surgery increased from 1.8% in 2012 to 15.1% in 2018 (8.4-fold increase; slope, 2.1% per year; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%). For certain procedures, the magnitude of the increase was greater; for example, for inguinal hernia repair, the use of robotic surgery increased from 0.7% to 28.8% (41.1-fold change; slope, 5.4% per year; 95% CI, 5.1%-5.7%). The use of robotic surgery increased 8.8% in the first 4 years after hospitals began performing robotic surgery (2.8% per year; 95% CI, 2.7%-2.9%). This trend was associated with a decrease in laparoscopic surgery from 53.2% to 51.3% (difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -2.2% to -1.6%). Before adopting robotic surgery, hospitals' use of laparoscopic surgery increased 1.3% per year. After adopting robotic surgery, the use of laparoscopic surgery declined 0.3% (difference in trends, -1.6%; 95% CI, -1.7% to -1.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that robotic surgery has continued to diffuse across a broad range of common surgical procedures. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHospitalsHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRobotic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID31922557
PMCPMC6991252
OpenAlexW3000214625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.