Article

The role of early adopter bias for new technologies in robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States
The Journal of Urology (Impact Factor: 3.75). 05/2007; 177(4):1318-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.035
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We determined the potential influence of an early adopter bias in patients undergoing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.
We compared baseline demographic, clinical and health related quality of life characteristics of patients undergoing 3 different surgical procedures for clinically localized prostate cancer following the introduction of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy at our institution. Patients included in this analysis were participating in a prospective health related quality of life study using the SF-12(R) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite validated questionnaires.
Of 402 patients 159 (39%) underwent robot assisted laparoscopic, 144 (36%) underwent radical perineal and 99 (25%) underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. There were no statistically significant associations between procedure type and patient age (p = 0.267), race (p = 0.725), number of medical comorbidities (p = 0.490), income (p = 0.056) and level of education (p = 0.495). Mean prostate specific antigen was 5.9 +/- 3.3, 7.3 +/- 5.5 and 5.7 +/- 5.0 ng/ml for robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.030). The proportion of robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients with a final Gleason score of 4-6 was 55%, 45% and 39%, respectively (p = 0.037). The proportion of robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients with stage T2 disease was 91%, 68% and 80%, respectively (p = 0.001). Statistically significant associations of higher income and education with higher baseline health related quality of life scores were seen in the sexual and physical domains (each p <0.01).
We failed to find evidence of an early adopter bias for patients undergoing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Nevertheless, observational studies comparing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy to radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy should account carefully for patient baseline characteristics to allow meaningful comparisons of surgical outcomes.

0 Followers
 · 
91 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : To describe trends in and predictors of surgical mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair and to estimate the influence of safety advisories on mesh use. : Analysis of women aged 18 years and older recorded in a health care quality and resource utilization database who underwent POP repair from 2000 to 2010, identified by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes, and stratified by mesh use. Odds ratios were calculated with adjustments for patient, physician, and hospital-level characteristics. : Among 273,275 women in the cohort, 64,968 (23.8%) underwent a mesh-augmented repair. Concurrent incontinence surgery was a strong predictor of mesh use (odds ratio [OR] 9.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.70-10.21). Mesh use increased from 7.9% in 2000 to a peak of 32.1% in 2006, and declined slightly to 27.5% in 2010. Among women without incontinence, mesh use increased from 3.3% in 2000 to 13.5% in 2006, and remained stable at 12.8% in 2010. Intermediate-volume (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.44-1.62) and high-volume (OR 2.74; 95% CI 2.58-2.92) surgeons were more likely to use mesh than low-volume surgeons. Compared with women who underwent operation by gynecologists, those treated by urologists were more than three times more likely to undergo mesh-augmented prolapse repair (OR 3.36; 95% CI 3.09-3.66). Black women were 27% less likely to undergo mesh repair (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.66-0.82). : Mesh-augmented prolapse repairs increased substantially over the past decade, and this increase was most pronounced in the years before the publication of safety advisories. Physician specialty and surgical volume are important factors underlying mesh use. Additional measures must ensure evidence-based use of mesh for pelvic reconstruction. : II.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 11/2012; 120(5):1105-15. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31826ebcc2 · 4.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical innovations disseminate in the absence of coordinated systems to ensure their safe integration into clinical practice, potentially exposing patients to increased risk for medical error.
    07/2014; 149(8). DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.31
  • Der Urologe 09/2007; 46(9):1239-1242. DOI:10.1007/s00120-007-1487-2 · 0.44 Impact Factor