Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36520224›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2023

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dana M Hayden, Kevin M Korous, Ellen Brooks, Fa Tuuhetaufa, Erin M King-Mullins, Abigail M Martin, Chassidy Grimes, Charles R Rogers

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Increasing Utilization Trends of Robotic Assistance in Orthopaedic Surgery.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dana M HaydenDepartment of Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Kevin M KorousInstitute for Health and Equity, Medical College of Wisconsin, 1000 N. 92nd St, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Ellen BrooksUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Salt Lake, UT, USA.
Fa TuuhetaufaUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Salt Lake, UT, USA.
Erin M King-Mullins, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abigail M MartinDepartment of Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Chassidy GrimesDepartment of Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Charles R RogersInstitute for Health and Equity, Medical College of Wisconsin, 1000 N. 92nd St, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. crrogers@mcw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3571-8229
Rush University Medical Center · USMedical College of Wisconsin · USUniversity of Utah · USAID Atlanta · US

Funding

Developing a Barbershop-Based Trial on Masculinity Barriers to Care and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake among African-American Men using a MixedMethods ApproachK01CA234319 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ROGERS, CHARLES R. · 2018 to 2022
$878k
NCI NIH HHS K01 CA234319
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSome studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

resultsTwenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39).

conclusionWhen determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryDigestive System Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFemaleHumansMaleMedicareUnited StatesCharacteristicsColorectal surgeryHospitalMinimally invasive surgeryPatient characteristicsRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID36520224
PMCPMC10947550
OpenAlexW4311542566

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.