The Impact of Corporate Payments on Robotic Surgery Research: A Systematic Review

Robotics, money and research: is data or physician payments driving robotic bariatric surgery literature?

INTRODUCTION

Physician payments from Intuitive Surgical have increased from 37 million to over 53 million per year since 2018. The study was completed to determine the accuracy of conflict of interest (COI) statements and the influence of industry payments on the valuation of the robotic platform.

METHODS

PubMed and Medline search for "robotic, robotic assisted" and "bariatric, Gastric Bypass, Sleeve Gastrectomy, Biliopancreatic Diversion, and Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass". Manuscripts on robotic bariatric surgery with a US author with an electronic publication (EPub) date between 2018 and 2022 were included. Manuscripts were reviewed for disclosure of COI. The manuscripts were reviewed by two reviewers. The Introduction, Results, and Discussion/Conclusion were scored as Robotic Unfavorable, Neutral, or Robotic Favorable. https://OpenPaymentsData.CMS.gov was reviewed for physician payments 1 year prior and 1 year following the EPub date.

RESULTS

Robotic favorable manuscripts were significantly less likely to have an adequate COI. Authors of robotic favorable manuscripts were significantly more likely to have a COI. Authors of robotic favorable manuscripts had significantly a higher Intuitive physician compensation. In addition, authors of robotic favorable manuscripts were significantly more likely to have an increase in the amount of compensation by Intuitive Surgical the following year.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that Intuitive open payments have significantly influenced favorable reports in robotic bariatric literature. The submission of open payments data, to include compensation amounts should be required for manuscript publication or acceptance to surgical conferences.

The current application and evidence for robotic approach in abdominal surgery: A narrative literature review

The current application of robotic surgery is evolving at a high pace in the current years. The technical advantages enable several abdominal surgical procedures to be performed minimally invasive instead of open surgery. Furthermore, procedures previously performed successfully using standard laparoscopy are now performed with a robotic approach, with conflicting results. The present narrative review reports the current literature on the robotic surgical procedures typically performed in a typical Scandinavian surgical department: colorectal, hernia, hepato-biliary, and esophagogastric surgery.

Do Corporate Payments Influence Research Related to the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Surgery?

BACKGROUND

No study has assessed the impact of financial conflicts of interests (COIs) on the reporting of breast reconstruction outcomes with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in peer-reviewed publications. The authors hypothesized that there is (1) an association between financial COIs and likelihood of studies reporting benefits in using ADM, and (2) inconsistent reporting of financial COIs.

METHODS

The PubMed database was used to identify articles that reported on the use of ADM in breast surgery in four leading plastic surgery journals from January of 2014 to December of 2019. Financial COIs for authors were determined using the open payments database.

RESULTS

Fifty-five articles were included. Twenty-four articles (43.6%) supported use of ADM, 12 (21.8%) did not promote ADM use, and 19 (34.5%) were neutral. Fifty-one studies (92.7%) had either a first or senior author with a COI, and authors with a COI more commonly reported positive outcomes ( P = 0.02). Studies with positive outcomes featured first authors who received significantly larger financial payments ($95,955 versus $15,642; P = 0.029) compared with studies with negative or neutral outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that studies with first authors receiving over $376.28 were more likely to report positive results. Eight senior authors and three first authors received greater than $500 from ADM producers yet did not report any financial disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial COI is associated with higher likelihood of studies reporting benefit of using ADM in breast surgery. There remains inconsistent reporting of COIs, and better oversight is needed to ensure unbiased publication on the use of ADM in breast surgery.

Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: What are Patients' Perspectives, Understanding and Expectations?

BACKGROUND

The rate of using robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) has increased markedly. Understanding how patients view the role of robotics during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) informs shared decision making and facilitate efforts to appropriately educate patients regarding the risks and benefits of robotic assistance.

METHODS

A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 440 potential TKA patients at the time of their surgery scheduling. Participants answered 25 questions regarding RA-TKA, socioeconomic factors, and their willingness to pay (WTP) for RA-TKA. Logistic regressions were used to determine if population characteristics and surgeon preferences influenced the patients' perceptions of RA-TKA.

RESULTS

There were 39.7% of respondents who said that they had no knowledge regarding RA-TKA. Only 40.7% of participants had expressed a desire for RA-TKA to be used. There were 8.7% who were WTP extra for the use of RA-TKA. Participants believed that the main 3 benefits of RA-TKA compared to conventional methods were: more accurate implant placement (56.2%); better results (49.0%); and faster recovery (32.1%). The main 3 patient concerns were harm from malfunction (55.2%), reduced surgeon role in the procedure (48.1%), and lack of supportive research (28.3%). Surgeon preference of RA-TKA was associated with patient's willingness to have RA-TKA (odds ratio 4.60, confidence interval 2.98-7.81, P < .001), and with WTP extra for RA-TKA (odds ratio 2.05, confidence interval: 1.01-4.26, P = .049).

CONCLUSION

Patient knowledge regarding RA-TKA is limited. Nonpeer-reviewed online information may make prospective TKA candidates vulnerable to misinformation and aggressive advertising. The challenge for orthopaedic surgeons is to re-establish control and reliably educate patients about the proven advantages and disadvantages of this emerging technology.

Why is there a lack of evidence regarding errors and complications in periodontal and implant therapy?

The occurrence of errors, complications, and adverse effects may occur as a consequence of single or multiple events related to the clinician and/or patient. Apparently, the amount of dental literature on these undesirable outcomes has not been as prolific as that obtained for conventional primary periodontal outcome measures. This review explores the potential reasons for the lack of studies reporting on errors and complications in periodontal and implant therapy, as well as other noteworthy methodological aspects, to enlighten their impact on the selection of the best (or most appropriate) "gold standard" periodontal/implant-related treatment options, and on the overall decision-making process. The following points were addressed: (a) the importance of reporting errors and complications in clinical research; (b) the adequate reporting of errors and complications in periodontology and dental implantology; and (c) efficacy trials vs effectiveness studies and their impact on the assessment and report of periodontal and implant treatment-related risks and complications.

Robotic-assisted surgery for prostatectomy - does the diffusion of robotic systems contribute to treatment centralization and influence patients' hospital choice?

BACKGROUND

Between 2008 and 2018, the share of robotic-assisted surgeries (RAS) for radical prostatectomies (RPEs) has increased from 3 to 46% in Germany. Firstly, we investigate if this diffusion of RAS has contributed to RPE treatment centralization. Secondly, we analyze if a hospital's use of an RAS system influenced patients' hospital choice.

METHODS

To analyze RPE treatment centralization, we use (bi-) annual hospital data from 2006 to 2018 for all German hospitals in a panel-data fixed effect model. For investigating RAS systems' influence on patients' hospital choice, we use patient level data of 4614 RPE patients treated in 2015. Employing a random utility choice model, we estimate the influence of RAS as well as specialization and quality on patients' marginal utilities and their according willingness to travel.

RESULTS

Despite a slight decrease in RPEs between 2006 and 2018, hospitals that invested in an RAS system could increase their case volumes significantly (+ 82% compared to hospitals that did not invest) contributing to treatment centralization. Moreover, patients are willing to travel longer for hospitals offering RAS (+ 22% than average travel time) and for specialization (+ 13% for certified prostate cancer treatment centers, + 9% for higher procedure volume). The influence of outcome quality and service quality on patients' hospital choice is insignificant or negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, centralization is partly driven by (very) high-volume hospitals' investment in RAS systems and patient preferences. While outcome quality might improve due to centralization and according specialization, evidence for a direct positive influence of RAS on RPE outcomes still is ambiguous. Patients have been voting with their feet, but research yet has to catch up.

The impact of disclosure of conflicts of interest in studies comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomies-a persistent problem

INTRODUCTION

Accurate disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is critical to interpretation of study results, especially when industry interests are involved. We reviewed published manuscripts comparing robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to evaluate the relationship between COI disclosures and conclusions drawn on the procedure benefits and safety profile.

METHODS

Searching Pubmed and Embase using key words "cholecystectomy", laparoscopic" and "robotic"/"robot-assisted" retrieved 345 publications. Manuscripts that compared benefits and safety of RAC over LC, had at least one US author and were published between 2014 and 2020 enabling verification of disclosures with reported industry payments in CMS's Open Payments database (OPD) (up to 1 calendar year prior to publication) were included in the analysis (n = 37).

RESULTS

Overall, 26 (70%) manuscripts concluded that RAC was equivalent or better than LC (RAC +) and 11 (30%) concluded that RAC was inferior to LC (RAC-). Six manuscripts (5 RAC + and 1 RAC-) did not have clearly stated COI disclosures. Among those that had disclosure statements, authors' disclosures matched OPD records among 17 (81%) of RAC + and 9 (90%) RAC- papers. All 11 RAC- and 17 RAC + (65%) manuscripts were based on retrospective cohort studies. The remaining RAC + papers were based on case studies/series (n = 4), literature review (n = 4) and clinical trial (n = 1). A higher proportion of RAC + (85% vs 45% RAC-) manuscripts used data from a single institution. Authors on RAC + papers received higher amounts of industry payments on average compared to RAC- papers.

CONCLUSIONS

It is imperative for authors to understand and accurately disclose their COI while disseminating scientific output. Journals have the responsibility to use a publicly available resource like the OPD to verify authors' disclosures prior to publication to protect the process of scientific authorship which is the foundation of modern surgical care.

Funding has no effect on clinical outcomes of total joint arthroplasty emerging technologies: a systematic review of bibliometrics and conflicts of interest

Background

The use of new total joint arthroplasty technologies, including patient-specific implants/instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted (CA), and robotic-assisted (RA) techniques, is increasing. There is an ongoing debate regarding the value provided and potential concerns about conflicts of interest (COI).

Methods

PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for total hip and knee arthroplasties, unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA), PSI, CA, and RA. Bibliometric data, financial COI, clinical/functional scores, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

Results

Eighty-seven studies were evaluated, with 35 (40.2%) including at least one author reporting COI, and 13 (14.9%) disclosing industry funding. COI and industry funding had no significant effects on outcomes (P = 0.682, P = 0.447), and there were no significant effects of conflicts or funding on level of evidence (P = 0.508, P = 0.826). Studies in which author(s) disclosed COI had significantly higher relative citation ratio (RCR) and impact factor (IF) than those without (P < 0.001, P = 0.032). Subanalysis demonstrated RA and PSI studies were more likely to report COI or industry funding (P = 0.045). RA (OR = 6.31, 95% CI: 1.61–24.68) and UKA (OR = 9.14, 95% CI: 1.43–58.53) had higher odds of reporting favorable outcomes than PSI.

Conclusions

Author COIs (about 40%) may be lower than previously reported in orthopedic technologies/techniques reviews. Studies utilizing RA and PSI were more likely to report COI, while RA and UKA studies were more likely to report favorable outcomes than PSI. No statistically significant association between the presence of COIs and/or industry funding and the frequency of favorable outcomes or study level of evidence was found.

Level of evidence

Level V Systematic Review

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42836-022-00146-3.

Perioperative Outcomes and Trends in the Use of Robotic Colectomy for Medicare Beneficiaries From 2010 Through 2016

Importance

The use of robotic surgery for common operations like colectomy is increasing rapidly in the United States, but evidence for its effectiveness is limited and may not reflect real-world practice.

Objective

To evaluate outcomes of and trends in the use of robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy across diverse practice settings.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective colectomy was conducted between January 2010 and December 2016. We used an instrumental variable analysis to account for both measured and unmeasured differences in patient characteristics between robotic, open, and laparoscopic colectomy procedures. Data were analyzed from January 21, 2019, to March 1, 2019.

Exposures

Receipt of robotic colectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Incidence of postoperative medical and surgical complications and length of stay.

Results

A total of 191 292 procedures (23 022 robotic procedures [12.0%], 87 639 open procedures [45.8%], and 80 631 laparoscopic colectomy procedures [42.0%]) were included. Robotic colectomy was associated with a lower adjusted rate of overall complications than open colectomy (17.6% [95% CI, 16.9%-18.2%] vs 18.6% [95% CI, 18.4%-18.7%]; relative risk [RR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.91-0.98]). This difference was driven by lower rates of medical complications (15.5% [95% CI, 14.8%-16.2%] vs 16.9% [95% CI, 16.7%-17.1%]; RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87-0.96]) because surgical complications were higher with the robotic approach (3.0% [95% CI, 2.8%-3.2%] vs 2.4% [95% CI, 2.3%-2.5%]; RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.04-1.35]). There were no differences in complications between robotic and laparoscopic colectomy (11.1% [95% CI, 10.5%-11.6%] vs 11.0% [95% CI, 10.8%-11.2%]; RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.05]). There was an overall shift toward greater proportional use of robotic colectomy from 0.7% (457 of 65 332 patients) in 2010 to 10.9% (8274 of 75 909 patients) in 2016. In hospitals with the highest adoption of robotic colectomy between 2010 and 2016, increasing use of robotic colectomy (0.8% [100 of 12 522 patients] to 32.8% [5416 of 16 511 patients]) was associated with a greater replacement of laparoscopic operations (43.8% [5485 of 12 522 patients] to 25.2% [4161 of 16 511 patients]) than open operations (55.4% [6937 of 12 522 patients] to 41.9% [6918 of 16 511 patients]).

Conclusions and Relevance

While robotic colectomy was associated with minimal safety benefit over open colectomy and had comparable outcomes with laparoscopic colectomy, population-based trends suggest that it replaced a greater proportion of laparoscopic rather than open colectomy, especially in hospitals with the highest adoption of robotics.

Comparative effectiveness of robotic and open radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy (RP) has undergone a remarkable transformation from open to minimally-invasive surgery over the last two decades. However, it is important to recognize there is still conflicting evidence regarding key outcomes. We aimed to summarize current literature on comparative effectiveness of robotic and open RP for key outcomes including oncologic results, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures, safety and postoperative complications, and healthcare costs. The bulk of the paper will discuss and interpret limitations of current data. Finally, we will also highlight future directions of both surgical approaches and its potential impact on health care delivery.

The Impact of Author Financial Conflicts on Robotic-Assisted Joint Arthroplasty Research

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested clinical superiority with robotic-assisted arthroplasty compared to traditional techniques. However, concerns exist regarding the author's financial conflicts of interest (COI), which may influence research outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether COI relating to robotic-assisted arthroplasty influences the results of published outcomes following total hip (THA), total knee (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify all studies evaluating the use of robotics in THA, TKA, and UKA. An author's financial COI was identified if they reported a relevant disclosure through the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or within the study article. We then queried the Open Payments website to record all payments made from a robotic company in the year prior to publication. Each study was categorized as either favoring robotics (n = 42), neutral (n = 10), or favoring traditional techniques (n = 2). We then compared the number of conflicted authors, journal impact factor, level of evidence, and mean annual industry payment to each author.

RESULTS

Of the 54 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 49 (91%) had an author financial COI. Conflicted studies were more likely to report favorable results of robotics than nonconflicted studies. When compared to studies favoring conventional techniques, those demonstrating favorable robotics outcomes had a higher number of conflicted authors and a higher mean industry payment per author. There was no difference in the level of evidence or journal impact factor.

DISCUSSION

Nearly all studies comparing robotic THA, TKA, and UKA to conventional techniques involve financially conflicted authors. Further studies without COI may provide unbiased results.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgical Approaches (Laparoscopic or Open): A Systematic Overview of Reviews

OBJECTIVE

Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery utilization has increased over the years across a wide range of surgical procedures. However, evidence supporting improved clinical outcomes after robotic surgery is limited.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of systematic reviews from inception to January 2019 for systematic reviews describing postoperative outcomes after robotic surgery. We qualitatively described patient outcomes of commonly performed robotic procedures: radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, lobectomy, thymectomy, rectal resection, partial nephrectomy, distal gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, hepatectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and cholecystectomy.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-four systematic reviews included 336 studies and 18 randomized controlled trials reporting on patient outcomes after robotic compared to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data from the randomized controlled trials demonstrate that robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offered fewer biochemical recurrence and improvement in quality of recovery and pain scores only up to 6 weeks postoperatively compared to open radical prostatectomy. When compared to laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic surgery offered improved urinary and sexual functions. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer had fewer conversion to open compared to laparoscopic. Otherwise, robotic surgery outcomes were similar to conventional surgical approaches for other procedures except for radical hysterectomy where minimally invasive approaches may result in patient harm compared to open approach.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery has been widely incorporated into practise despite limited supporting evidence. More rigorous research focused on patient-important benefits is needed before further expansion of robotic surgery.

Research quality and transparency, outcome measurement and evidence for safety and effectiveness in robot-assisted surgery: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has potential panspecialty surgical benefits. High-quality evidence for widespread implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the RAS evidence base for the quality of randomized evidence on safety and effectiveness, specialty 'clustering', and outcomes for RAS research.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. All pathologies and procedures utilizing RAS were included. Studies were limited to RCTs, the English language and publication within the last decade. The main outcomes selected for the review design were safety and efficacy, and study purpose. Secondary outcomes were study characteristics, funding and governance.

RESULTS

Searches identified 7142 titles, from which 183 RCTs were identified for data extraction. The commonest specialty was urology (35·0 per cent). There were just 76 unique study populations, indicating significant overlap of publications; 103 principal studies were assessed further. Only 64·1 per cent of studies reported a primary outcome measure, with 29·1 per cent matching their registration/protocol. Safety was assessed in 68·9 per cent of trials; operative complications were the commonest measure. Forty-eight per cent of trials reported no significant difference in safety between RAS and comparator, and 11 per cent reported RAS to be superior. Efficacy or effectiveness was assessed in 80·6 per cent of trials; 43 per cent of trials showed no difference between RAS and comparator, and 24 per cent reported that RAS was superior. Funding was declared in 47·6 per cent of trials.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for RAS is of limited quality and variable transparency in reporting. No patterns of harm to patients were identified. RAS has potential to be beneficial, but requires continued high-quality evaluation.

The Policies for the Disclosure of Funding and Conflict of Interest in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Industry through its funding of research and through its relationships with study authors can influence the results of research. Most journals have policies for reporting funding and disclosing conflict of interest (COI) to mitigate the influence of industry on research. The objective of this study is to assess the policies of surgery journals for the reporting of funding and the disclosure of COI.

METHODS

We described the prevalence and characteristics of funding and COI policies of journals indexed under "Surgery" in the Journal Citation Reports. We extracted data from publicly available information and through simulation of manuscript submission.

RESULTS

Of the 186 eligible journals, 171 (92%) had policies for reporting of funding. None of the policies described procedures to deal with non-reporting or underreporting of funding. Of the 186 journals, 183 (99%) had a policy for disclosure of COI. All journals with a COI policy required disclosure of financial interest, while 96 (52%) required the disclosure of non-financial interests. Only 24 (13%) policies described how non-disclosure of COI affects the editorial process, and none described procedures to verify COI disclosure. Of the policies that required disclosing COI, 94 (51%) also required reporting the source of financial COI.

CONCLUSIONS

Most journals have policies for reporting of funding and disclosure of financial COI. However, many do not have clear policies for disclosing non-financial COI. Major limitations in the policies include the lack of processes for the verification of disclosed interests and for dealing with underreporting of funding and of COI.

3D laparoscopy does not reduce operative duration or errors in day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Contemporary 3D platforms have overcome past deficiencies. Available trainee and laboratory studies suggest stereoscopic imaging improves performance but there is little clinical data or studies assessing specialists. We aimed to determine whether stereoscopic (3D) laparoscopic systems reduce operative time and number of intraoperative errors during specialist-performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

A parallel arm (1:1) randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D passive-polarised laparoscopic systems in day-case LC using was performed. Eleven consultant surgeons that had each performed > 200 LC (including > 10 3D LC) participated. Cases were video recorded and a four-point difficulty grade applied. The primary outcome was overall operative time. Subtask time and the number of intraoperative consequential errors as identified by two blinded assessors using a hierarchical task analysis and the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique formed secondary endpoints.

Results

112 patients were randomised. There was no difference in operative time between 2D and 3D LC (23:14 min (± 10:52) vs. 20:17 (± 9:10), absolute difference − 14.6%, p = 0.148) although 3D surgery was significantly quicker in difficulty grade 3 and 4 cases (30:23 min (± 9:24), vs. 18:02 (± 7:56), p < 0.001). No differences in overall error count was seen (total 47, median 1, range 0–4 vs. 45, 1, 0–3, p = 0.62) although there were significantly fewer 3D gallbladder perforations (15 vs. 6, p = 0.034).

Conclusion

3D laparoscopy did not reduce overall operative time or error frequency in laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed by specialist surgeons. 3D reduced Calot’s dissection time and operative time in complex cases as well as the incidence of iatrogenic gallbladder perforation (NCT01930344).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-06961-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.