Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35445834›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Rocco Ricciardi, Robert Neil Goldstone, Todd Francone, Matthew Wszolek, Hugh Auchincloss, Alexander de Groot, I-Fan Shih, Yanli Li

Open access · hybridAbstract 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. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Minimally invasiveTranslational lung cancer research · 2025
    Article
  6. Surgeon Sex and Postoperative Resource Utilization: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rocco RicciardiSection of Colon & Rectal Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street, WACC 460, Boston, MA, USA. Rricciardi1@mgh.harvard.edu.
Robert Neil GoldstoneSection of Colon & Rectal Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street, WACC 460, Boston, MA, USA.
Todd FranconeSection of Colon & Rectal Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street, WACC 460, Boston, MA, USA.
Matthew WszolekDepartment of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Hugh AuchinclossDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Alexander de GrootGlobal Access, Value, & Economics, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
I-Fan ShihGlobal Access, Value, & Economics, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Yanli LiGlobal Access, Value, & Economics, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Harvard University · USIntuitive Surgical (United States) · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the US healthcare system moves towards value-based care, hospitals have increased efforts to improve quality and reduce unnecessary resource use. Surgery is one of the most resource-intensive areas of healthcare and we aim to compare health resource utilization between open and minimally invasive cancer procedures.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed cancer patients who underwent colon resection, rectal resection, lobectomy, or radical nephrectomy within the Premier hospital database between 2014 and 2019. Study outcomes included length of stay (LOS), discharge status, reoperation, and 30-day readmission. The open surgical approach was compared to minimally invasive approach (MIS), with subgroup analysis of laparoscopic/video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (LAP/VATS) and robotic (RS) approaches, using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

resultsMIS patients had shorter LOS compared to open approach: - 1.87 days for lobectomy, - 1.34 days for colon resection, - 0.47 days for rectal resection, and - 1.21 days for radical nephrectomy (all p < .001). All MIS procedures except for rectal resection are associated with higher discharge to home rates and lower reoperation and readmission rates. Within MIS, robotic approach was further associated with shorter LOS than LAP/VATS: - 0.13 days for lobectomy, - 0.28 days for colon resection, - 0.67 days for rectal resection, and - 0.33 days for radical nephrectomy (all p < .05) and with equivalent readmission rates.

conclusionOur data demonstrate a significant shorter LOS, higher discharge to home rate, and lower rates of reoperation and readmission for MIS as compared to open procedures in patients with lung, kidney, and colorectal cancer. Patients who underwent robotic procedures had further reductions in LOS compare to laparoscopic/video-assisted thoracoscopic approach, while the reductions in LOS did not lead to increased rates of readmission.

Indexed as

Rectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresDelivery of Health CareHumansLength of StayMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCancerLaparoscopic surgeryLength of stayMinimally invasive surgeryReadmissionRobotic-assisted surgery

Identifiers

PMID35445834
PMCPMC9022614
OpenAlexW4224255611

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.