Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36115146›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2023

Minimally Invasive Surgery in the United States, 2022: Understanding Its Value Using New Datasets.

Aviva S Mattingly, Michelle M Chen, Vasu Divi, F Christopher Holsinger, Anirudh Saraswathula

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Audio-based event detection in the operating room.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Post-Market Clinical Follow-Up Study of the LevaLap 1.0 during Laparoscopic Access.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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.

Aviva S MattinglyDivision of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Michelle M ChenDepartment of Otolaryngology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Vasu DiviDivision of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
F Christopher HolsingerDivision of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: holsinger@stanford.edu.
Anirudh SaraswathulaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING IN OTOLARYNGOLOGYT32DC000027 · NIDCD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CAREY, JOHN PATRICK · 1989 to 2023
$5.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has transformed the treatment landscape of surgical care, its utilization is not well understood. The newly released Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample allows for more accurate estimates of MIS volume in the United States-in combination with inpatient datasets. MATERIALS AND

methodsMultiple nationwide databases from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) were used: the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample and National Inpatient Sample. The volume of MIS and robotic procedures were calculated from 2016 to 2018. An online query system, HCUPNet, was queried for inpatient stays from 1993 to 2014.

resultsIn 2017, 9.8 million inpatient major operating room procedures were analyzed, of which 11.1% were MIS and 2.5% were robotic-assisted, compared with 9.6 million inpatient operating room procedures (11.2% MIS and 2.9% robotic-assisted) in 2018. There were 10.6, 10.6, and 10.7 million ambulatory procedures in 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. Ambulatory MIS procedures showed an increasing trend across years, representing 16.9%, 17.4%, and 18%, respectively. HCUPNet data revealed an increase in inpatient MIS cases from 529,811 (8.9%) in 1993 to 1,443,446 (20.7%) in 2014.

conclusionsThis study is the first to estimate national MIS volume across specialties in both inpatient and ambulatory hospital settings. We found a trend toward a higher proportion of MIS and robotic cases from 1997 to 2018. These data may help contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of MIS value within surgery and highlight limitations of current databases, especially when categorizing robotic cases on a national scale.

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAmbulatory Surgical ProceduresDatabases, FactualHumansInpatientsMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesAmbulatory surgeryHCUPMinimally invasive surgeryNASSNISRobotic-assisted

Identifiers

PMID36115146
PMCPMC9691544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.