Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40134491›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2025

Rates of Minimally Invasive Surgery After Introduction of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Common General Surgery Operations.

Zhi Ven Fong, Elizabeth Wall-Wieler, Shaneeta Johnson, Richard Culbertson, Brian Mitzman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The prehabilitation paradox in ventral hernia: from universal to personalized care.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Review
  6. 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.

Zhi Ven FongFrom the Department of Surgery and Endocrine Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ.
Elizabeth Wall-WielerGlobal Health Economics and Outcomes Research Division, Intuitive, Sunnyvale, CA.
Shaneeta JohnsonDepartment of Surgery, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Richard CulbertsonSchool of Public Health and School of Medicine, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, LA.
Brian MitzmanDepartment of Surgery, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT.

Funding

Tracking & Evaluation CoreU54GM104940 · NIGMS · LSU PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CTR · PI JUDD E SHELLITO · 2012 to 2026
$69.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Many patients who would benefit from minimally invasive surgery (MIS) have open surgery; robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and could increase rates of MIS across different patient populations. Objective: To determine whether the introduction of RAS increases MIS rates and whether increases are seen across different patient populations undergoing common general surgery procedures. Design: A retrospective cohort study was performed to compare rates of MIS in the year before and after the index date for hospitals that did and did not introduce RAS. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to compare rates in MIS over time. Setting: PINC AI Healthcare Database, an all-payor discharge database of hospitals in the United States. Participants: Hospitals that performed cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, and colorectal resection from 2016 to 2022. Exposure: RAS hospitals performing at least 1 common general surgery procedure using RAS. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary analysis examined rates of MIS, defined as the rate of common general surgeries that were minimally invasive (laparoscopic or RAS) in a hospital. The secondary analysis examined MIS rates for common general surgeries, across age, sex, race, ethnicity, and payor. Results: Of 408 hospitals included in the study, 153 (38%) introduced RAS for common general surgeries. The relative MIS rate for hospitals that introduced RAS compared with hospitals that did not went from 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.14; Conclusions and Relevance: Hospitals that introduced RAS for common general surgery procedures were associated with an increase in MIS rates across different patient populations compared with hospitals that did not introduce RAS.

Indexed as

general surgery operationsminimally invasive surgeryrobotic assisted surgery

Identifiers

PMID40134491
PMCPMC11932606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.