Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Health Services Research and Robotic Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

  • 1016 Accesses

Abstract

There is increasing awareness that surgeons must become experts on the systems necessary to achieve reliable, safe and high-quality surgical care and authorities on the “value” of different interventions for patients. The study of these issues—termed Health Services Research—is particularly relevant for robotic surgeons.

Robotic surgery was rapidly adopted in urology, despite little prospective data showing a benefit over open surgery. Thus, interpreting data on the benefits of robotic surgery often requires an understanding of observational outcomes research as well as advanced analytic techniques. What’s more, the diffusion of robotic surgery has occurred in a way that differs from many prior surgical innovations: who gets surgery, where they get surgery and when they get surgery have all been impacted by unique aspects of robotic surgery. As we look to the future of payment reform, novel payment schemes like bundled payments and accountable care organizations will play a dramatic role in shaping patterns of surgical care and surgical systems. In aggregate, these changes will no doubt impact robotic surgery as well.

While the entirety of this field is too broad to be covered in a single chapter, the above key issues are felt to be of particular interest to the urologic surgeon. In the following chapter we will systematically survey these key issues related to the study of health systems, outcomes and their relation to robotic surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE, Lobontiu A, Saint F, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol. 2001;165(6 Pt 1):1964–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol. 2002;168(3):945–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti urology institute experience. Urology. 2002;60(5):864–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Bhandari A, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(4):701–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Bhandari A. The technique of apical dissection of the prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis in robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2004;93(6):715–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J, Team VIP. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2289–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Hu J, Kim S, Briganti A, Sammon JD, et al. Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer? Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments. J Endourol. 2014;28(7):784–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C, Maschino AC, Laudone VP, Dechet CB, et al. Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol. 2012;187(6):2087–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bjorklund J, Folkvaljon Y, Cole A, Carlsson S, Robinson D, Loeb S, et al. Ninety-day postoperative mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and retropubic radical prostatectomy. Nation-wide population-based study. BJU Int. 2016;118(2):302–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Trinh QD, Ghani KR, Menon M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: ready to be counted? Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):16–8. discussion 8-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):418–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, Choueiri TK, Hu JC, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1419–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu JC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, Nguyen PL, Trinh QD, Shih YC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):666–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF, Stricker PD, Ahlering T, Eden CG, et al. A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2013;66(3):450–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Suardi N, Ficarra V, Willemsen P, De Wil P, Gallina A, De Naeyer G, et al. Long-term biochemical recurrence rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of a single-center series of patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Urology. 2012;79(1):133–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boorjian SA, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, Karnes RJ, Moul JW, et al. A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol. 2012;61(4):664–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American urological association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177(2):540–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mir MC, Li J, Klink JC, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Stephenson AJ. Optimal definition of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy depends on pathologic risk factors: identifying candidates for early salvage therapy. Eur Urol. 2013, 66(2):204–10.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Tutolo M, Bianchi M, et al. What is the definition of a satisfactory erectile function after bilateral nerve sparing radical prostatectomy? J Sex Med. 2011;8(4):1210–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Graefen M. The modified Clavien system: a plea for a standardized reporting system for surgical complications. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):387–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Martin RC 2nd, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg. 2002;235(6):803–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Donat SM. Standards for surgical complication reporting in urologic oncology: time for a change. Urology. 2007;69(2):221–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Agarwal PK, Sammon J, Bhandari A, Dabaja A, Diaz M, Dusik-Fenton S, et al. Safety profile of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a standardized report of complications in 3317 patients. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):684–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ghazi A, Scosyrev E, Patel H, Messing EM, Joseph JV. Complications associated with extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the standardized Martin classification. Urology. 2013;81(2):324–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jhaveri JK, Penna FJ, Diaz-Insua M, Jeong W, Menon M, Peabody JO. Ureteral injuries sustained during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014;28(3):318–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Novara G, Ficarra V, D'Elia C, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Prospective evaluation with standardised criteria for postoperative complications after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):363–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hakimi AA, Faleck DM, Sobey S, Ioffe E, Rabbani F, Donat SM, et al. Assessment of complication and functional outcome reporting in the minimally invasive prostatectomy literature from 2006 to the present. BJU Int. 2012;109(1):26–30. discussion

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992;111(5):518–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Loppenberg B, Noldus J, Holz A, Palisaar RJ. Reporting complications after open radical retropubic prostatectomy using the Martin criteria. J Urol. 2010;184(3):944–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Salonia A, et al. Preoperative erectile function represents a significant predictor of postoperative urinary continence recovery in patients treated with bilateral nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2012;187(2):569–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Marcovich R, Montie JE, Sanda MG. Prospective assessment of patient reported urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000;164(3 Pt 1):744–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wei JT, Montie JE. Comparison of patients' and physicians' rating of urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. Semin Urol Oncol. 2000;18(1):76–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Liss MA, Osann K, Canvasser N, Chu W, Chang A, Gan J, et al. Continence definition after radical prostatectomy using urinary quality of life: evaluation of patient reported validated questionnaires. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1464–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, de Reijke TM, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2012;380(9858):2018–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Briganti A, Joniau S, Gandaglia G, Cozzarini C, Sun M, Tombal B, et al. Patterns and predictors of early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy in men with pT3N0 prostate cancer: implications for multimodal therapies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(5):960–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(24):1781–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Punnen S, Cooperberg MR, D'Amico AV, Karakiewicz PI, Moul JW, Scher HI, et al. Management of biochemical recurrence after primary treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):905–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody JO, Rogers CG, et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010;58(6):838–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Masterson TA, Cheng L, Boris RS, Koch MO. Open vs. robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon and pathologist comparison of pathologic and oncologic outcomes. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1043–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jayram G, Decastro GJ, Large MC, Razmaria A, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk disease: a review of short-term outcomes from a high-volume center. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):455–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM, Guzzo TJ, Netto G, Humphreys EB, et al. Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int. 2011;107(12):1956–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ploussard G, Drouin SJ, Rode J, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Location, extent, and multifocality of positive surgical margins for biochemical recurrence prediction after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2014;32(6):1393–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Choo MS, Cho SY, Ko K, Jeong CW, Lee SB, Ku JH, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins and their locations after radical prostatectomy: comparison of biochemical recurrence according to risk stratification and surgical modality. World J Urol. 2013;32(6):1401–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Briganti A, Karnes RJ, Joniau S, Boorjian SA, Cozzarini C, Gandaglia G, et al. Prediction of outcome following early salvage radiotherapy among patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013, 66(3):479–86.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Stephenson AJ, Eggener SE, Hernandez AV, Klein EA, Kattan MW, Wood DP Jr, et al. Do margins matter? The influence of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):675–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):303–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Vickers A, Bianco F, Cronin A, Eastham J, Klein E, Kattan M, et al. The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1360–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Karnes RJ, Joniau S, Blute ML, Van Poppel H. Caveat emptor. Eur Urol. 2014;66:673–5. In press

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Gallina A, Zaffuto E, Cucchiara V, Vizziello D, et al. How to optimize patient selection for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: functional outcome analyses from a tertiary referral center. J Endourol. 2014;28(7):792–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Abdollah F, Suardi N, Cozzarini C, Gallina A, Capitanio U, Bianchi M, et al. Selecting the optimal candidate for adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a long-term survival analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;63(6):998–1008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, Budaus L, Jeldres C, Graefen M, et al. Decreasing rate and extent of lymph node staging in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy may undermine the rate of diagnosis of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;58(6):882–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):480–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gandaglia G, Trinh QD, Hu JC, Schiffmann J, Becker A, Roghmann F, et al. The impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on the use and extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in the "post-dissemination" period. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(9):1080–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Pfister D, Bolla M, Briganti A, Carroll P, Cozzarini C, Joniau S, et al. Early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;65(6):1034–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, Albertsen P, Davis BJ, Goldenberg SL, Hahn C, et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):441–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, Shirley M, Vale L, Ramsay C, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol. 2013;64(3):361–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bolenz C, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, Lotan Y, Lowrance WT, Nelson JB, et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):316–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Tomaszewski JJ, Matchett JC, Davies BJ, Jackman SV, Hrebinko RL, Nelson JB. Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2012;80(1):126–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kim SP, Shah ND, Karnes RJ, Weight CJ, Shippee ND, Han LC, et al. Hospitalization costs for radical prostatectomy attributable to robotic surgery. Eur Urol. 2013;64(1):11–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Leow JJ, Reese SW, Jiang W, Lipsitz SR, Bellmunt J, Trinh QD, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):569–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Choueiri TK, Choi WW, Lei Y, et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):1517–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Cole AP, Leow JJ, Chang SL, Chung BI, Meyer CP, Kibel AS, et al. Surgeon and hospital-level variation in the costs of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1090–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology. 2004;63(5):819–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, Ospina JC, Mazzoleni F, Errico G, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;104(7):991–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Schmitges J, Trinh QD, Bianchi M, Sun M, Abdollah F, Ahyai SA, et al. The effect of annual surgical caseload on the rates of in-hospital pneumonia and other in-hospital outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012;44(3):799–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Briganti A, Bianchi M, Sun M, Suardi N, Gallina A, Abdollah F, et al. Impact of the introduction of a robotic training programme on prostate cancer stage migration at a single tertiary referral centre. BJU Int. 2013;111(8):1222–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Jacobs BL, Zhang Y, Schroeck FR, Skolarus TA, Wei JT, Montie JE, et al. Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer. JAMA. 2013;309(24):2587–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Giordano SH, Kuo YF, Duan Z, Hortobagyi GN, Freeman J, Goodwin JS. Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy. Cancer. 2008;112(11):2456–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):431–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):405–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Moran PS, O'Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol. 2013;20(3):312–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(2):207–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D'Amico AV, Weinberg AC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Barry MJ, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS, Fowler FJ Jr. Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(5):513–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Kim SP, Boorjian SA, Shah ND, Weight CJ, Tilburt JC, Han LC, et al. Disparities in access to hospitals with robotic surgery for patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(2):514–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61(4):679–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Sammon JD, Abdollah F, Choueiri TK, Kantoff PW, Nguyen PL, Menon M, et al. Prostate-specific antigen screening after 2012 US preventive services task force recommendations. JAMA. 2015;314(19):2077–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Cole AP, Trinh QD. Secondary data analysis: techniques for comparing interventions and their limitations. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27:354–359.

    Google Scholar 

  82. D'Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17(19):2265–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Brooks JM, Ohsfeldt RL. Squeezing the balloon: propensity scores and unmeasured covariate balance. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(4):1487–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Leow JJ, Cole AP, Sun M, Trinh QD. Association of androgen deprivation therapy with Alzheimer's disease: unmeasured confounders. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2801–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Korn EL, Freidlin B. Methodology for comparative effectiveness research: potential and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4185–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:17–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, Shih W, Lin Y, DiPaola RS, et al. Survival following primary androgen deprivation therapy among men with localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2008;300(2):173–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA. 2007;297(3):278–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Gardiner RA, Yaxley J, Coughlin G, Dunglison N, Occhipinti S, Younie S, et al. A randomised trial of robotic and open prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:189.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Thompson RH, Tollefson MK. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01365143. Accessed 26 Mar 2014.

  91. Gardiner RA, Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Dunglison NT, Occhipinti S, Younie SJ, et al. A progress report on a prospective randomised trial of open and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;65(3):512–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2011;8(5):1503–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):606–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD, Silberstein J, Keren Paz GE, Donat SM, et al. Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1042–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Studer UE. The surgeon makes the difference, not the instrument used. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1051–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Wuethrich PY, Studer UE, Thalmann GN, Burkhard FC. Intraoperative continuous norepinephrine infusion combined with restrictive deferred hydration significantly reduces the need for blood transfusion in patients undergoing open radical cystectomy: results of a prospective randomised trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):352–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):701–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Barbash GI, Friedman B, Glied SA, Steiner CA. Factors associated with adoption of robotic surgical technology in US hospitals and relationship to radical prostatectomy procedure volume. Ann Surg. 2014;259(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Anderson CB, Penson DF, Ni S, Makarov DV, Barocas DA. Centralization of radical prostatectomy in the United States. J Urol. 2013;189(2):500–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Neuner JM, See WA, Pezzin LE, Tarima S, Nattinger AB. The association of robotic surgical technology and hospital prostatectomy volumes: increasing market share through the adoption of technology. Cancer. 2012;118(2):371–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Stitzenberg KB, Wong YN, Nielsen ME, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG. Trends in radical prostatectomy: centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care. Cancer. 2012;118(1):54–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Trinh QD, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, Hu JC, Shariat SF, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):786–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Luft HS, Hunt SS, Maerki SC. The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns? Health Serv Res. 1987;22(2):157–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Hollenbeck BK, Wei Y, Birkmeyer JD. Volume, process of care, and operative mortality for cystectomy for bladder cancer. Urology. 2007;69(5):871–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Birkmeyer JD. Should we regionalize major surgery? Potential benefits and policy considerations. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190(3):341–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Lowrance WT, Elkin EB, Jacks LM, Yee DS, Jang TL, Laudone VP, et al. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1366–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Scales CD Jr, Jones PJ, Eisenstein EL, Preminger GM, Albala DM. Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;174(6):2323–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Squires DA. Explaining high health care spending in the United States: an international comparison of supply, utilization, prices, and quality. Issue Brief. 2012;10:1–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Makarov DV. New technology in urology: balancing risk and reward. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(3):324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Jin LX, Ibrahim AM, Newman NA, Makarov DV, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA. Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual. 2011;33(6):48–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Makarov DV, Yu JB, Desai RA, Penson DF, Gross CP. The association between diffusion of the surgical robot and radical prostatectomy rates. Med Care. 2011;49(4):333–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Tunis SR, Bass EB, Steinberg EP. The use of angioplasty, bypass surgery, and amputation in the management of peripheral vascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(8):556–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Upchurch GR, Dimick JB, Wainess RM, Eliason JL, Henke PK, Cowan JA, et al. Diffusion of new technology in health care: the case of aorto-iliac occlusive disease. Surgery. 2004;136(4):812–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Karamlou T, Diggs BS, Ungerleider RM, McCrindle BW, Welke KF. The rush to atrial septal defect closure: is the introduction of percutaneous closure driving utilization? Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86(5):1584–90. discussion 90-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Gelijns AC, Fendrick AM. The dynamics of innovation in minimally invasive therapy. Health Policy. 1993;23(1–2):153–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Wang YR, Dempsey DT, Friedenberg FK, Richter JE. Trends of Heller myotomy hospitalizations for achalasia in the United States, 1993-2005: effect of surgery volume on perioperative outcomes. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(10):2454–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Mitchell JM. Urologists' use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(17):1629–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Budaus L, Spethmann J, Isbarn H, Schmitges J, Beesch L, Haese A, et al. Inverse stage migration in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results of 8916 European patients treated within the last decade. BJU Int. 2011;108(8):1256–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Silberstein JL, Vickers AJ, Power NE, Fine SW, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Reverse stage shift at a tertiary care center: escalating risk in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011;117(21):4855–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1742–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Shortell SM. Bending the cost curve: a critical component of health care reform. JAMA. 2009;302(11):1223–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Chamie K, Saigal CS, Lai J, Hanley JM, Setodji CM, Konety BR, et al. Quality of care in patients with bladder cancer: a case report? Cancer. 2012;118(5):1412–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Bundled payments for care improvement (BPCI) initiative: general information: Centers for medicare and medicaid services; [Updated August 20, 2015. Available from: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/bundled-payments/.

  124. Printz C. MACRA paves way for changes in reimbursements: Physicians hopeful law will lead to more value-based care. Cancer. 2015;121(13):2103–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Munoz E, Munoz W 3rd, National WL. surgical health care expenditures, 2005–2025. Ann Surg. 2010;251(2):195–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Carducci MA, Carroll PR. Multidisciplinary management of advanced prostate cancer: changing perspectives on referring patients and enhancing collaboration between oncologists and urologists in clinical trials. Urology. 2005;65(5 Suppl):18–22. discussion

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Colby SLO, Jennifer M. In: Commerce USDo, editor. Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau; 2014. p. 25–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Miller DC, Saigal CS, Litwin MS. The demographic burden of urologic diseases in America. Urol Clin North Am. 2009;36(1):11–27. v

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Birkmeyer JD, Gust C, Baser O, Dimick JB, Sutherland JM, Skinner JS. Medicare payments for common inpatient procedures: implications for episode-based payment bundling. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(6 Pt 1):1783–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Iorio R, Clair AJ, Inneh IA, Slover JD, Bosco JA, Zuckerman JD. Early results of medicare's bundled payment initiative for a 90-day total joint arthroplasty episode of care. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(2):343–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Albright BB, Lewis VA, Ross JS, Colla CH. Preventive care quality of medicare accountable care organizations: associations of organizational characteristics with performance. Med Care. 2016;54(3):326–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Hawken SR, Herrel LA, Ellimoottil C, Ye Z, Hollenbeck BK, Miller DC. Urologist participation in medicare shared savings program accountable care organizations (ACOs). Urology. 2016;90:76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Sammon JD, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M, Sukumar S, Ravi P, Ghani KR, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: the differential effect of regionalization, procedure volume and operative approach. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1289–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Abdollah F, Budaus L, Sun M, Morgan M, Johal R, Thuret R, et al. Impact of caseload on total hospital charges: a direct comparison between minimally invasive and open radical prostatectomy--a population based study. J Urol. 2011;185(3):855–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. McWilliams JM, Song Z. Implications for ACOs of variations in spending growth. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(19):e29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Kaye DR, Mullins JK, Carter HB, Bivalacqua TJ. Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share? Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(1):55–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Giorgio Gandaglia for his assistance co-authoring a prior version of this chapter which formed the basis of portions of this chapter.

Disclosure Statement: Quoc-Dien Trinh is supported by an unrestricted educational grant from the Vattikuti Urology Institute, a Career Development Award from the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a Young Investigator Award from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urological Surgery, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Alexander P. Cole, David F. Friedlander & Quoc-Dien Trinh

Authors
  1. Alexander P. Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David F. Friedlander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quoc-Dien Trinh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Ashok K. Hemal

  2. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cole, A.P., Friedlander, D.F., Trinh, QD. (2018). Health Services Research and Robotic Surgery. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20644-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20645-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation