Socioeconomic and Racial Disparities in the Use of Robotic-Assisted Proctectomy in Rectal Cancer.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY American Surgeon Pub Date : 2024-12-02 DOI:10.1177/00031348241304013
Sameh Hany Emile, Zoe Garoufalia, Rachel Gefen, Giovanna Dasilva, Steven D Wexner
{"title":"Socioeconomic and Racial Disparities in the Use of Robotic-Assisted Proctectomy in Rectal Cancer.","authors":"Sameh Hany Emile, Zoe Garoufalia, Rachel Gefen, Giovanna Dasilva, Steven D Wexner","doi":"10.1177/00031348241304013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rectal cancer surgery is technically demanding, especially in males. Robotic assistance may help overcome these challenges. This study aimed to identify factors associated with robotic-assisted proctectomy in rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective case-control analysis of patients with clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent proctectomy from the National Cancer Database (2010-2019) was conducted. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine predictive factors of robotic-assisted proctectomy in rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>67 145 patients (60.9% male; mean age: 61.15 ± 12.49 years) were included. 44.7% had stage III disease and 66.2% received neoadjuvant radiation. The surgical approach was laparotomy (n = 29 725), laparoscopy (n = 21 657), and robotic-assisted proctectomy (n = 15 763). Independent predictors for the use of robotic-assisted proctectomy were age <50 years (OR: 1.06; <i>P</i> = .032), male sex (OR: 1.07, <i>P</i> < .001), Asian race (OR: 1.25; <i>P</i> < .001), private insurance (OR: 1.25; <i>P</i> < .001), rectal cancer treatment between 2015 and 2019 (OR: 3.52; <i>P</i> < .001), stage III disease (OR: 1.06; <i>P</i> = .048), neoadjuvant radiation (OR: 1.26; <i>P</i> < .001), and pull-through coloanal anastomosis (OR: 1.15; <i>P</i> < .001). Robotic-assisted surgery was less often used in Black (OR: .857, <i>P</i> < .001) and American Indian patients (OR: .62, <i>P</i> = .002) and those with a Charlson score = 3 (OR: .818, <i>P</i> = .002), living in rural areas (OR: .865, <i>P</i> = .033), who were uninsured (OR: .611, <i>P</i> < .001), and undergoing pelvic exenteration (OR: .461, <i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Demographic and insurance disparities of robotic-assisted proctectomy are Black and American Indian patients and those with higher Charlson comorbidity index scores and uninsured patients were less likely to undergo robotic-assisted proctectomy. While patients with advanced disease and/or received neoadjuvant radiation were more likely to undergo robotic-assisted proctectomy, robotic-assisted surgery was less often performed in pelvic exenteration.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"31348241304013"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241304013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rectal cancer surgery is technically demanding, especially in males. Robotic assistance may help overcome these challenges. This study aimed to identify factors associated with robotic-assisted proctectomy in rectal cancer.

Methods: Retrospective case-control analysis of patients with clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent proctectomy from the National Cancer Database (2010-2019) was conducted. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine predictive factors of robotic-assisted proctectomy in rectal cancer.

Results: 67 145 patients (60.9% male; mean age: 61.15 ± 12.49 years) were included. 44.7% had stage III disease and 66.2% received neoadjuvant radiation. The surgical approach was laparotomy (n = 29 725), laparoscopy (n = 21 657), and robotic-assisted proctectomy (n = 15 763). Independent predictors for the use of robotic-assisted proctectomy were age <50 years (OR: 1.06; P = .032), male sex (OR: 1.07, P < .001), Asian race (OR: 1.25; P < .001), private insurance (OR: 1.25; P < .001), rectal cancer treatment between 2015 and 2019 (OR: 3.52; P < .001), stage III disease (OR: 1.06; P = .048), neoadjuvant radiation (OR: 1.26; P < .001), and pull-through coloanal anastomosis (OR: 1.15; P < .001). Robotic-assisted surgery was less often used in Black (OR: .857, P < .001) and American Indian patients (OR: .62, P = .002) and those with a Charlson score = 3 (OR: .818, P = .002), living in rural areas (OR: .865, P = .033), who were uninsured (OR: .611, P < .001), and undergoing pelvic exenteration (OR: .461, P < .001).

Conclusions: Demographic and insurance disparities of robotic-assisted proctectomy are Black and American Indian patients and those with higher Charlson comorbidity index scores and uninsured patients were less likely to undergo robotic-assisted proctectomy. While patients with advanced disease and/or received neoadjuvant radiation were more likely to undergo robotic-assisted proctectomy, robotic-assisted surgery was less often performed in pelvic exenteration.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在使用机器人辅助直肠切除术中的社会经济和种族差异。
背景:直肠癌手术技术要求高,尤其是男性。机器人辅助可能有助于克服这些挑战。本研究旨在确定与机器人辅助直肠癌直肠切除术相关的因素。方法:回顾性病例对照分析2010-2019年国家癌症数据库中进行直肠切除术的临床I-III期直肠腺癌患者。通过单变量和多变量二元logistic回归分析确定机器人辅助直肠癌直肠切除术的预测因素。结果:67 145例患者(男性60.9%;平均年龄:61.15±12.49岁)。44.7%为III期,66.2%接受新辅助放疗。手术入路为剖腹手术(n = 29 725)、腹腔镜手术(n = 21 657)和机器人辅助直肠切除术(n = 15 763)。使用机器人辅助保护切除术的独立预测因素为年龄(P = 0.032)、男性(OR: 1.07, P < 0.001)、亚洲种族(OR: 1.25;P < 0.001),私人保险(OR: 1.25;P < 0.001), 2015 - 2019年直肠癌治疗(OR: 3.52;P < 0.001), III期疾病(OR: 1.06;P = 0.048),新辅助放疗(OR: 1.26;P < 0.001),拉过式结肠肛管吻合术(OR: 1.15;P < 0.001)。黑人(OR: 0.857, P < 0.001)、美洲印第安人(OR: 0.62, P = 0.002)、Charlson评分= 3 (OR: 0.818, P = 0.002)、农村(OR: 0.865, P = 0.033)、未参保(OR: 0.611, P < 0.001)、盆腔切除(OR: 0.461, P < 0.001)患者较少使用机器人辅助手术。结论:机器人辅助直肠切除术的人口统计学和保险差异在于黑人和美国印第安人患者,Charlson合病指数得分较高的患者和未投保的患者接受机器人辅助直肠切除术的可能性较小。虽然疾病晚期和/或接受新辅助放疗的患者更有可能接受机器人辅助的直肠切除术,但机器人辅助手术在盆腔切除中较少进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Surgeon
American Surgeon 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
623
期刊介绍: The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.
期刊最新文献
Inpatient Cost of Trauma Care Versus Repair of Elective Open Inguinal Hernias: Nationwide Trends Over Nearly a Decade. Axilla Management in Breast Cancer Surgery: Brief Review and Current Practice Recommendations. Paramedic Judgment as a Basis for Trauma Triage: Is it an Effective Strategy? Mental Practice, Visualization, and Mental Imagery in Surgery: a Systematic Review. Expression of Concern.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1