Robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology: a bibliometric study.
Bibliometrics
Citations
Gynecologic surgery
Research
Robot
Journal
Journal of robotic surgery
ISSN: 1863-2491
Titre abrégé: J Robot Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300401
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
19
04
2023
accepted:
04
07
2023
medline:
11
9
2023
pubmed:
11
7
2023
entrez:
10
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aimed to identify the trends and patterns of robotic surgery research in obstetrics and gynecology since its implementation. We used data from Clarivate's Web of Science platform to identify all articles published on robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology. A total of 838 publications were included in the analysis. Of these, 485 (57.9%) were from North America and 281 (26.0%) from Europe. 788 (94.0%) articles originated in high-income countries and none from low-income countries. The number of publications per year reached a peak of 69 articles in 2014. The subject of 344 (41.1%) of articles was gynecologic oncology, followed by benign gynecology (n = 176, 21.0%) and urogynecology (n = 156, 18.6%). Articles discussing gynecologic oncology had lower representation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (32.0% vs. 41.6%, p < 0.001) compared with high income countries. After 2015 there has been a higher representation of publications from Asia (19.7% vs. 7.7%) and from LMIC (8.4% vs. 2.6%), compared to the preceding years. In a multivariable regression analysis, journal's impact factor [aOR 95% CI 1.30 (1.16-1.41)], gynecologic oncology subject [aOR 95% CI 1.73 (1.06-2.81)] and randomized controlled trials [aOR 95% CI 3.67 (1.47-9.16)] were associated with higher number of citations per year. In conclusion, robotic surgery research in obstetrics & gynecology is dominated by research in gynecologic oncology and reached a peak nearly a decade ago. The disparity in the quantity and quality of robotic research between high income countries and LMIC raises concerns regarding the access of the latter to high quality healthcare resources such as robotic surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37429970
doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01672-1
pii: 10.1007/s11701-023-01672-1
pmc: PMC10492767
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2387-2397Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S (1988) A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35(2):153–160. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.1354
doi: 10.1109/10.1354
pubmed: 3280462
Dharia SP, Falcone T (2005) Robotics in reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril 84(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.015
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.015
pubmed: 16009146
Satava RM (2002) Surgical robotics: the early chronicles: a personal historical perspective. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12(1):6–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129689-200202000-00002
doi: 10.1097/00129689-200202000-00002
pubmed: 12008765
Leal Ghezzi T, Campos CO (2016) 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 40(10):2550–2557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9
doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9
pubmed: 27177648
Hussain A, Malik A, Halim MU, Ali AM (2014) The use of robotics in surgery: a review. Int J Clin Pract 68(11):1376–1382. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12492
doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12492
pubmed: 25283250
Musbahi A, Rao CB, Immanuel A (2022) A bibliometric analysis of robotic surgery from 2001 to 2021. World J Surg 46(6):1314–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06492-2
doi: 10.1007/s00268-022-06492-2
pubmed: 35258666
pmcid: 9054892
Meara JG, Leather AJ, Hagander L et al (2016) Global surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Int J Obstet Anesth 25:75–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2015.09.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2015.09.006
pubmed: 26597405
Cazac C, Radu G (2014) Telesurgery–an efficient interdisciplinary approach used to improve the health care system. J Med Life 7 Spec No 3(Spec Iss 3):137–141
pubmed: 25870712
Liberman D, Trinh QD, Jeldres C, Zorn KC (2012) Is robotic surgery cost-effective: yes. Curr Opin Urol 22(1):61–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e32834d543f
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32834d543f
pubmed: 22037320
Rabah DM, Al-Abdin OZ (2012) The development of robotic surgery in the Middle East. Arab J Urol 10(1):10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2011.12.001
doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2011.12.001
pubmed: 26557999
pmcid: 4442898
Nobbenhuis MAE, Gul N, Barton-Smith P et al (2023) Robotic surgery in gynaecology: scientific impact paper no. 71 (July 2022). BJOG 130(1):e1–e8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17242
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17242
pubmed: 35844092
Thompson DF, Walker CK (2015) A descriptive and historical review of bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences. Pharmacotherapy 35(6):551–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1586
doi: 10.1002/phar.1586
pubmed: 25940769
Moed HF (2009) New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 57(1):13–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0001-5
doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-0001-5
pubmed: 19219533
Li K, Rollins J, Yan E (2018) Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics 115(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5
doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5
pubmed: 29527070
Qi Wang LW (2016) Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. J Informetr 10:347–364
doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003
Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A (2016) The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106:213–228
doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Gynecology ABoO (2022) Specialty Certifying Examination Bulletin. www.abog.org/docs/default-source/bulletins/2022/2022-certifying-examination-in-obstetrics-and-gynecology-8.31.2021.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=ef0b8435_3/%202022-Certifying-Examination-in-Obstetrics-and-Gynecology-8.31.2021%20.pdf . Accessed 02 Dec 2022
Brandt MD, Ghozy SA, Kallmes DF, McDonald RJ, Kadirvel RD (2022) Comparison of citation rates between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 articles across 24 major scientific journals. PLoS One. 17(7):e0271071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271071
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271071
pubmed: 35895698
pmcid: 9328554
The World Bank. GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD . Accessed 22 Mar 2023
Margossian H, Garcia-Ruiz A, Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Attaran M, Gagner M (1998) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical uterine horn anastomosis. Fertil Steril 70(3):530–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00196-4
Truong MD, Tholemeier LN (2022) Role of robotic surgery in benign gynecology. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 49(2):273–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2022.02.009
doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2022.02.009
pubmed: 35636808
Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D et al (2019) Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):CD011422. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2
pubmed: 30985921
Intuitive Annual Report (2021) Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Publication date- 2/3/2022. https://isrg.intuitive.com/static-files/704322bf-cb0d-4ed1-954c-8eb46a070f70 . Accessed 22 Mar 2023
O’Malley DM, Smith B, Fowler JM (2015) The role of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol 112(7):761–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23988
doi: 10.1002/jso.23988
pubmed: 26385835
Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R et al (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379(20):1895–1904. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
pubmed: 30380365
Matanes E, Abitbol J, Kessous R et al (2019) Oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic versus open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 41(4):450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.09.013
doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.09.013
pubmed: 30529223
Ackroyd SA, Thomas S, Angel C, Moore R, Meacham PJ, DuBeshter B (2018) Interval robotic cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. J Robot Surg 12(2):245–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0720-2
doi: 10.1007/s11701-017-0720-2
pubmed: 28631233
Abitbol J, Gotlieb W, Zeng Z et al (2019) Incorporating robotic surgery into the management of ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 29(9):1341–1347. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000413
doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000413
pubmed: 31601648
Visco AG, Advincula AP (2008) Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1369–1384. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818f3c17
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818f3c17
pubmed: 19037049
Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(3):291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.003
pubmed: 19423061
Newswire CP (2022) Global Surgical Robotics Market Report 2021: Intuitive Surgical Dominated the Market by Holding 79.82% Market Share in 2020 - Long-term Forecast to 2031. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-surgical-robotics-market-report-2021-intuitive-surgical-dominated-the-market-by-holding-79-82-market-share-in-2020---long-term-forecast-to-2031--301286609.html . Accessed 20 Dec 2022
NASDAQ (2022) Is Intuitive Surgical Stock a Buy Now?. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/is-intuitive-surgical-stock-a-buy-now . Accessed 22 Mar 2023
Liatsikos E, Tsaturyan A, Kyriazis I, Kallidonis P, Manolopoulos D, Magoutas A (2022) Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system. World J Urol 40(1):283–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03809-z
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03809-z
pubmed: 34424374
Carbonnel M, Moawad GN, Tarazi MM et al (2021) Robotic hysterectomy for benign indications: what have we learned from a decade? JSLS. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2020.00091
doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2020.00091
pubmed: 33879990
pmcid: 8035818
Smorgick N, Patzkowsky KE, Hoffman MR, Advincula AP, Song AH, As-Sanie S (2014) The increasing use of robot-assisted approach for hysterectomy results in decreasing rates of abdominal hysterectomy and traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(1):101–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2948-z
doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-2948-z
pubmed: 23839534
Tyan P, Hawa N, Carey E et al (2022) Trends and perioperative outcomes across elective benign hysterectomy procedures from the ACS-NSQIP 2007–2017. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 29(3):365-374.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2021.09.714
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.09.714
pubmed: 34610464