Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34170354›Full record

ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2021

[DeRAS I-German situation of robotic-assisted surgery-an online survey].

C M Krüger, O Rückbeil, U Sebestyen, T Schlick, J Kürbis, H Riediger

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Robotic adrenalectomy-current evidence].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. [Robotic rectal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  9. [Robots in visceral and thoracic surgery-Quo vadis?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. [Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer-New technologies, modern concepts].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C M KrügerAbteilung Chirurgie/Zentrum für Robotik, Immanuel Klinikum Rüdersdorf, Seebad 82/83, 15562, Rüdersdorf b. Berlin, Deutschland. colin.m.krueger@immanuelalbertinen.de.
O RückbeilAbteilung Chirurgie/Zentrum für Robotik, Immanuel Klinikum Rüdersdorf, Seebad 82/83, 15562, Rüdersdorf b. Berlin, Deutschland.
U SebestyenAbteilung Chirurgie/Zentrum für Robotik, Immanuel Klinikum Rüdersdorf, Seebad 82/83, 15562, Rüdersdorf b. Berlin, Deutschland.
T SchlickAbteilung Chirurgie/Zentrum für Robotik, Immanuel Klinikum Rüdersdorf, Seebad 82/83, 15562, Rüdersdorf b. Berlin, Deutschland.
J KürbisSurgiData UG, Mahlow, Deutschland.
H RiedigerDepartment für Chirurgie, Vivantes Humboldt Klinikum, Berlin, Deutschland.
Immanuel Krankenhaus · DEMahlo (Germany) · DEVivantes Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic assistance has become established in surgery but is not yet a standard procedure. The current status of clinical dissemination in Germany remains unclear. Industry independent sources are scarce. AIM OF THE WORK: The aim of this survey was to investigate the current status of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) across specialties in Germany from 2014 to 2018. MATERIAL AND

methodsAn internet search was used to identify hospitals and departments (DP) with access to RAS. The DPs were asked to share their data from 2014-2018. In addition to clinical data, data on utilization, implementation, training, and funding were requested.

resultsAs of 31 December 2018 RAS was offered at 121 hospitals in Germany, 383 DPs with access to RAS were identified and 26% (n = 98) of DPs responded. On average each DP had two consultant surgeons, 10% of DPs had more than one RAS system and 100% of the RAS systems recorded were from Intuitive Surgical Inc., CA, USA. RAS was implemented in 65% in urology and in 12% in visceral surgery (VS). 21% of programs were interdisciplinary and 4% multidisciplinary (> 3). 83% of systems were purchased and 17% otherwise funded. For additional operating room costs, 74% of hospitals reported paying for them themselves. 14% chose pay as you go. Since 2014, procedures increased by a factor of 4 to approximately 8000. The proportion of VS increased by a factor of 5 since 2016.

conclusionRAS in Germany experienced strong growth through 2018. The range of procedures is similar to that of laparoscopy. With a current lack of reimbursement for the additional technical effort, RAS is predominantly used in the medium and high complexity range. The online survey is a good method to collect independent data without high administrative effort.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrologyGermanyHumansDigitalization in medicineImplementationInnovationRoboticsSurvey

Identifiers

PMID34170354
PMCPMC8629862
OpenAlexW3177129241

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.