Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35141775›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Impact of type of minimally invasive approach on open conversions across ten common procedures in different specialties.

Paresh C Shah, Alexander de Groot, Robert Cerfolio, William C Huang, Kathy Huang, Chao Song, Yanli Li, Usha Kreaden, Daniel S Oh

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. An Emergency Robotic Programme for Acute Complicated Diverticulitis: A Tertiary Centre Experience.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Paresh C ShahDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Robert I. Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Alexander de GrootGlobal Access Value Economics, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Robert CerfolioDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Robert I. Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
William C HuangDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, Robert I. Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Kathy HuangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Robert I. Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Chao SongGlobal Access Value Economics, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Yanli LiGlobal Access Value Economics, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Usha KreadenGlobal Access Value Economics, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Daniel S OhDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo St, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. Daniel.Oh@med.usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2843-8077

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConversion rates during minimally invasive surgery are generally examined in the limited scope of a particular procedure. However, for a hospital or payor, the cumulative impact of conversions during commonly performed procedures could have a much larger negative effect than what is appreciated by individual surgeons. The aim of this study is to assess open conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across common procedures using laparoscopic/thoracoscopic (LAP/VATS) and robotic-assisted (RAS) approaches. STUDY

designRetrospective cohort study using the Premier Database on patients who underwent common operations (hysterectomy, lobectomy, right colectomy, benign sigmoidectomy, low anterior resection, inguinal and ventral hernia repair, and partial nephrectomy) between January 2013 and September 2015. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to define procedures, modality, and conversion. Propensity scores were calculated using patient, hospital, and surgeon characteristics. Propensity-score matched analysis was used to compare conversions between LAP/VATS and RAS for each procedure.

resultsA total of 278,520 patients had MIS approaches of the ten operations. Conversion occurred in 5% of patients and was associated with a 1.77 day incremental increase in length of stay and $3441 incremental increase in cost. RAS was associated with a 58.5% lower rate of conversion to open surgery compared to LAP/VATS.

conclusionAt a health system or payer level, conversion to open is detrimental not just for the patient and surgeon but also puts a significant strain on hospital resources. Use of RAS was associated with less than half of the conversion rate observed for LAP/VATS.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColectomyFemaleHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesThoracic Surgery, Video-AssistedGeneral surgeryGynecological and urological surgeryMinimally invasive surgeryOpen conversionRobotic-assisted surgeryThoracic surgery

Identifiers

PMID35141775
PMCPMC9283176

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.