Abstract
Background The adoption of RAC remains limited due to high costs. There is a paucity of data regarding the impact of institutional robotic experience on costs in patients undergoing RAC for colorectal cancer.
Methods All adult patients undergoing RAC for colorectal cancer were identified using the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. A multivariable regression to model major adverse events (MAE) was developed with the inclusion of institutional robotic surgery volume as restricted cubic splines. The volume corresponding to the inflection point of the spline was used to stratify hospitals into high-(HVH) or low-volume (LVH). We subsequently examined the association of HVH status with costs, length of stay (LOS), MAE, non-home discharge and 30-day unplanned readmission.
Results Among the 43,475 patients undergoing RAC, 63.8% were treated at HVH. Following risk adjustment, RAC at HVH was associated with reduced index hospitalization costs by $2,000 (95%CI $1,500-2,400) and LOS by 0.3 days (95%CI 0.2-0.5 days) as well as decreased odds of MAE (AOR 0.86, 95%CI 0.77-0.96). Both non-home discharge and 30-day unplanned readmission were not associated with hospital volume. In our cross-volume analysis, we found an increase in institutional RAC and overall robotic volumes to be associated with reduced odds of MAE.
Conclusion The present study demonstrated higher institutional robotic-assisted operation volume to be associated with reduced MAE and cost in patients undergoing RAC. The findings suggest the potential benefits of increasing expertise and implementing efficient practices in robotic-assisted surgery programs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Data was gathered and reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline. Due to the fully de-identified nature of the NRD, this study was deemed exempt from full review by the Institutional Review Board at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA (IRB:17-001112, approved 2017). Patient consent (verbal or written) was also waived due to the de-identified nature of the NRD. No human participant consent was required.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Twitter: Core Lab: @CoreLabUCLA | Nam Yong Cho: @NamYong_Cho
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, The University of Edinburgh, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos