Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37500803›Full record

ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023

[Robot-assisted visceral surgery in Germany : Analysis of the current status and trends of the last 5 years using data from the StuDoQ|Robotics registry].

Maximilian Brunner, Amr ElGendy, Axel Denz, Georg Weber, Robert Grützmann, Christian Krautz

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Robotic rectal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  10. 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

6 authors.

Maximilian BrunnerKlink für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland. Maximilian.Brunner@uk-erlangen.de.
Amr ElGendyKlink für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland.
Axel DenzKlink für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland.
Georg WeberKlink für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland.
Robert GrützmannKlink für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland.
Christian KrautzKlink für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot-assisted systems have been increasingly used in general surgery for several years. Accordingly, the number of systems installed in Germany has also rapidly increased. While around 100 robot-assisted systems were used in German hospitals in 2018, this figure had already risen to more than 200 by 2022. The aim of this article is to present the current state of development and trends in robotic surgery in Germany. For this purpose, data from the StuDoQ|Robotics register were analyzed. Furthermore, a descriptive analysis of concomitant diagnosis-related groups (DRG) data was carried out via the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), for a better assessment of the representativeness of the StuDoQ|Robotics register data. In both data sets, the annual number of robot-assisted visceral surgery procedures in Germany steadily increased. Compared to the DRG data, only 3.7% up to a maximum of 36.7% of all robot-assisted procedures performed were documented in the StuDoQ|Robotics register, depending on the type of procedure. Colorectal resections were the most frequent robot-assisted procedures (StuDoQ: 32.5% and 36.7% vs. DRG data: 24.2% and 29.7%) and had, for example, low mortality rates (StuDoQ: 1% and 1% vs. DRG data: 2.3% and 1.3%). Due to the low coverage rates of robot-assisted esophageal, gastric, pancreatic and liver interventions, no valid statements could be derived from the StuDoQ data for these areas. With the current coverage rates, the informative value of the StuDoQ|Robotics register is considerably limited for some types of intervention. In the future, measures should therefore be explored that lead to a significant increase in the coverage rates.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresGermanyRegistriesHospital billing dataRobotic colorectal surgeryRobotic hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeryRobotic surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tractStuDoQ register

Identifiers

PMID37500803
PMCPMC10587021

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.