Maurice Matthew J, Zhu Hui, Kim Simon P, Abouassaly Robert
Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States;; Division of Urology, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Can Urol Assoc J. 2016 May-Jun;10(5-6):192-201. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3628.
New technologies may limit access to treatment. We investigated radical prostatectomy (RP) access over time since robotic introduction and the impact of robotic use on RP access relative to other approaches in the modern era.
Using the National Cancer Data Base, RPs performed during the eras of early (2004-2005) and late (2010-2011) robotic dissemination were identified. The primary endpoints, patient travel distance and treatment delay, were compared by era, and for 2010-2011, by surgical approach. Analyses included multivariable and multinomial logistic regression.
138 476 cases were identified, 32% from 2004-2005 and 68% from 2010-2011. In 2010-2011, 74%, 21%, and 4.3% of RPs were robotic, open, and laparoscopic, respectively. Treatment in 2010-2011 and robotic approach were independently associated with increased patient travel distance and longer treatment delay (p<0.001). Men treated robotically had 1.1-1.2 times higher odds of traveling medium-to-long-range distances and 1.2-1.3 higher odds of delays 90 days or greater compared to those treated open (p<0.001). Laparoscopic approach was associated with increased patient travel and treatment delay, but to a lesser extent than the robotic approach (p<0.001). In high-risk patients, treatment delays remained significantly longer for minimally invasive approaches (p<0.001). Other factors associated with the robotic approach included referral from an outside facility, treatment at an academic or high-volume hospital, higher income, and private insurance. Potential limitations include the retrospective observational design and lack of external validation of the primary outcomes.
The robotic approach is associated with increased travel burden and treatment delay, potentially limiting access to surgical care.
新技术可能会限制治疗的可及性。我们研究了自机器人手术引入以来根治性前列腺切除术(RP)的可及性随时间的变化,以及在现代,机器人手术的使用相对于其他手术方式对RP可及性的影响。
利用国家癌症数据库,确定在早期(2004 - 2005年)和晚期(2010 - 2011年)机器人手术普及阶段所进行的RP手术。主要终点指标,即患者的行程距离和治疗延迟,按时期进行比较,并在2010 - 2011年按手术方式进行比较。分析包括多变量和多项逻辑回归。
共识别出138476例病例,其中2004 - 2005年的占32%,2010 - 2011年的占68%。在2010 - 2011年,RP手术中74%为机器人手术,21%为开放手术,4.3%为腹腔镜手术。2010 - 2011年的治疗以及机器人手术方式均与患者行程距离增加和治疗延迟延长独立相关(p<0.001)。与接受开放手术的患者相比,接受机器人手术的男性患者中到长距离出行的几率高1.1 - 1.2倍,延迟90天及以上的几率高1.2 - 1.3倍(p<0.001)。腹腔镜手术方式与患者行程和治疗延迟增加相关,但程度低于机器人手术方式(p<0.001)。在高危患者中,微创治疗方式的治疗延迟仍显著更长(p<0.001)。与机器人手术方式相关的其他因素包括来自外部机构的转诊、在学术或大容量医院接受治疗、较高收入以及私人保险。潜在局限性包括回顾性观察设计以及主要结局缺乏外部验证。
机器人手术方式与出行负担增加和治疗延迟相关,可能会限制手术治疗的可及性。