Impact of robotic-assisted surgery on length of hospital stay in Paris public hospitals: a retrospective analysis.
Laparoscopy
Length of hospital stay
Open surgery
Robot-assisted surgery
Journal
Journal of robotic surgery
ISSN: 1863-2491
Titre abrégé: J Robot Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300401
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Sep 2024
04 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
08
06
2024
accepted:
21
06
2024
medline:
4
9
2024
pubmed:
4
9
2024
entrez:
4
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The number of available hospital beds is decreasing in many countries. Reducing the length of hospital stay (LOS) and increasing bed turnover could improve patient flow. We evaluated whether robot-assisted surgery (RAS) had a beneficial impact on the LOS in a French hospital trust with a long-established robotic program (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP). We extracted data from "Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information" to determine the median LOS for adults in our trust after RAS versus laparoscopy and open surgery in 2021-2022 for eight target procedures, and compared data nationally and at similar academic centres (same database). We also calculated the number of hospitalisation days 'saved' using RAS. Overall, 9326 target procedures were performed at AP-HP: 3864 (41.4%) RAS, 2978 (31.9%) laparoscopies, and 2484 (26.6%) open surgeries. The median LOS for RAS was lower than laparoscopy and open surgery for all procedures, apart from hysterectomy and colectomy (equivalent to laparoscopy). Results for urological procedures at AP-HP reflected national values. The equivalent of 5390 hospitalisation days was saved in 2021-2022 using RAS instead of open surgery or laparoscopy at AP-HP; of these, 86% represented hospitalisation days saved using RAS in urological procedures. Using RAS instead of open surgery or laparoscopy (particularly in urological procedures) reduced the median LOS and may save thousands of hospitalisation days every year. This should help to increase patient turnover and facilitate patient flow.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39230755
doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02031-4
pii: 10.1007/s11701-024-02031-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
332Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
OECD. Hospital beds (indicator) (2023). https://data.oecd.org/healtheqt/hospital-beds.htm ( https://doi.org/10.1787/0191328e-en ); Accessed 27 May 2023
Buchan J, Catton H. Recover to rebuild. Investing in the nursing workforce for health system effectiveness (International Council of Nurses, March 2023). (2023). https://www.icn.ch/system/files/2023-03/ICN_Recover-to-Rebuild_report_EN.pdf ; Accessed 27 May 2023
Stone K, Zwiggelaar R, Jones P, Mac Parthaláin N (2022) A systematic review of the prediction of hospital length of stay: towards a unified framework. PLOS Digit Health 1:e0000017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000017
doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000017
pubmed: 36812502
pmcid: 9931263
Rojas-García A, Turner S, Pizzo E, Hudson E, Thomas J, Raine R (2018) Impact and experiences of delayed discharge: a mixed-studies systematic review. Health Expect 21:41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12619
doi: 10.1111/hex.12619
pubmed: 28898930
Ravaghi H, Alidoost S, Mannion R, Bélorgeot VD (2020) Models and methods for determining the optimal number of beds in hospitals and regions: a systematic scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 20:186. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-5023-z
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-5023-z
pubmed: 32143700
pmcid: 7060560
Ransome E, Tooba T, Philip B, Andrew C (2018) Factors influencing length of hospital stay and hospital charges in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a five-year population based study: P-039. Am J Gastroenterol 113:S10
doi: 10.14309/00000434-201802001-00039
Effective Health Care Program, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville M. Research Protocol: Interventions to Decrease Hospital Length of Stay. (2020). https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/hospital-length-of-stay/protocol ; accessed 8 Jun 2023.
Pfister M, Probst P, Müller PC, Antony P, Klotz R, Kalkum E et al (2023) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatic surgery: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BJS open. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrad007
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad007
pubmed: 37698976
pmcid: 10496866
Roesel R, Bernardi L, Bonino MA, Popeskou SG, Garofalo F, Cristaudi A (2023) Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatic enucleation: systematic review and metanalysis of short-term outcomes. HPB (Oxford) 25:603–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.014
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.014
pubmed: 36958987
Chen K, Pan Y, Liu X-l, Jiang G-y, Wu D, Maher H et al (2017) Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery. BMC Gastroenterol 17:120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9
doi: 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9
pubmed: 29169337
pmcid: 5701376
Leow JJ, Heah NH, Chang SL, Chong YL, Png KS (2016) Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: an updated meta-analysis of 4,919 patients. J Urol 196:1371–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.011
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.011
pubmed: 27291654
Heger P, Probst P, Hüttner FJ, Gooßen K, Proctor T, Müller-Stich BP et al (2017) Evaluation of open and minimally invasive adrenalectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Surg 41:2746–2757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4095-3
doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-4095-3
pubmed: 28634842
Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH (2015) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:891–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.028
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.028
pubmed: 25572825
Khajeh E, Aminizadeh E, Dooghaie Moghadam A, Nikbakhsh R, Goncalves G, Carvalho C et al (2023) Outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer compared with open and laparoscopic surgery. Cancers (Basel) 15:839
doi: 10.3390/cancers15030839
pubmed: 36765797
Baral S, Arawker MH, Sun Q, Jiang M, Wang L, Wang Y et al (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a mega meta-analysis. Front Surg 9:895976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.895976
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.895976
pubmed: 35836604
pmcid: 9273891
Safiejko K, Tarkowski R, Koselak M, Juchimiuk M, Tarasik A, Pruc M et al (2021) Robotic-assisted vs standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19,731 patients. Cancers (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010180
doi: 10.3390/cancers14010180
pubmed: 35008344
Technical Agency for Information on Hospitalization (ATIH). DRG Manual - Final version 2023. (2023). https://www.atih.sante.fr/manuel-des-ghm-version-definitive-2023 ; Accessed 18 Mar 2024
Han TS, Murray P, Robin J, Wilkinson P, Fluck D, Fry CH (2021) Evaluation of the association of length of stay in hospital and outcomes. Int J Qual Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab160
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab160
pmcid: 9070811
OECD (2021) Health at a Glance 2021. Hospital discharges and average length of stay. https://doi.org/10.1787/18faaea9-en ; Accessed 27 May 2023
Abercrombie J. General Surgery: GIRFT Programme National Specialty Report. (2017). https://gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/GIRFT-GeneralSurgeryReport-Aug17v1.pdf ; Accessed 9 Jun 2023
Manach Q, Rouprêt M, Reboul-Marty J, Drouin SJ, Guillot-Tantay C, Matillon X et al (2018) Hospital readmissions after urological surgical procedures in france: a nationwide cohort study over 3 years. Eur Urol Focus 4:621–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.06.001
pubmed: 28753813