Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39). CONCLUSION: When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

A New Bibliometric Index: The Top 100 Most Disruptive and Developmental Publications in Colorectal Surgery Journals.

BACKGROUND: A new bibliometric index called the disruption score was recently proposed to identify innovative and paradigm-changing publications. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to apply the disruption score to the colorectal surgery literature to provide the community with a repository of important research articles. DESIGN: This study is a bibliometric analysis. SETTINGS: The 100 most disruptive and developmental publications in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, and Techniques in Coloproctology were identified from a validated data set of disruption scores and linked with the iCite National Institutes of Health tool to obtain citation counts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the disruption score and citation count. RESULTS: We identified 12,127 articles published in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (n = 8109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1751), and Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) between 1954 and 2014. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum had the most articles in the top 100 most disruptive and developmental lists. The disruptive articles were in the top 1% of the disruption score distribution in PubMed and were cited between 1 and 671 times. Being highly cited was weakly correlated with high disruption scores (r = 0.09). Developmental articles had disruption scores that were more strongly correlated with citation count (r = 0.18). LIMITATIONS: This study is subject to the limitations of bibliometric indices, which change over time. DISCUSSION: The disruption score identified insightful and paradigm-changing studies in colorectal surgery. These studies include a wide range of topics and consistently identified editorials and case reports/case series as important research. This bibliometric analysis provides colorectal surgeons with a unique archive of research that can often be overlooked but that may have scholarly significance. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639.UN NUEVO INDICE BIBLIOMÉTRICO: LAS 100 MAS IMPORTANTES PUBLICACIONES EN INNOVACIONES DESESTABILIZADORAS Y DE DESARROLLO EN LAS REVISTAS DE CIRUGÍA COLORRECTALANTECEDENTES:Un nuevo índice bibliométrico llamado innovación desestabilizadora y de desarrollo ha sido propuesto para identificar publicaciones de vanguardia y que pueden romper paradigmas.OBJETIVO:La meta fué aplicar el índice de desestabilización a la literature en cirugía colorectal para aportar a la comunidad con un acervo importante de artículos de investigación.DISEÑO:Un análisis bibliométrico.PARAMETROS:Las 100 publicaciones mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo en las revistas: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, y Techniques in Coloproctology se recuperaron de una base de datos validada con puntuaciones de desestabilización y se ligaron con la herramienta iCite NIH para obtener la cuantificación de citas.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:El índice desestabilizador y la cuantificación de citas.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron 12,127 articulos publicados en Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (n = 8,109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1,912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1,751), y Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) de 1954-2014. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum representó la mayoría de las publicaciones dentro de la lista de los 100 mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo. Esta literatura desestabilizadora se encuentra en el principal 1% de la distribución de la puntuacón desestabilizadora en PubMed y se citaron de 1 a 671 veces. El ser citado con frecuencia se relacionó vagamente con las puntuaciones de desastibilización (r = 0.09). Los artículos de desarrollo tuvieron puntuaciones de desestabilización que estuvieron muy correlacionados con la cuantificación de las citas (r = 0.18).LIMITACIONES:Las sujetas a las limitaciones de los índices bibliométricos, que se modifican en el tiempo.DISCUSION:La putuación de desestabilicación identificó trabajos perspicaces, pragmáticos y modificadores de paradigmas en cirugía colorrectal. Es de interés identificar que se incluyeron una gran variedad de temas y en forma consistente editoriales, reportes de casos y series de casos que representaron una investigación importante. Este análisis bibliométrico aporta a los cirujanos colorrectales de un acervo de investigación único que puede con frecuencia pasarse por alto, y sin embargo tener una gran importancia académica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639. (Traducción- Dr. Miguel Esquivel-Herrera).

Relation of Waist-Hip Ratio to Long-Term Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.

We aimed to assess the association between measures of obesity and outcomes in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. We included consecutive patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation for previous CAD events, who were classified using body mass index (BMI) groups and gender-specific tertiles of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). Follow-up was ascertained using a population-based, record linkage system. Major cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as the composite outcome including acute coronary syndromes, coronary revascularization, ventricular arrhythmias, stroke, or death from any cause. We used Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for potential confounders. The cohort included 1,529 patients (74% men), 63.1 ± 12.5 years (mean age ± SD), of whom 40% were obese by BMI. Eighty-eight percent of men and 57% of women were classified as having central obesity by WHR. Median follow-up was 5.7 years and 415 patients had MACE. After adjustment, a high WHR tertile was a significant predictor for MACE in women (hazard ratio [HR] 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16, 2.94, p = 0.01) but not in men (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69, 1.22, p = 0.54). This relation in women persisted after further adjustment for BMI (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07, 2.87, p = 0.03). Obesity by BMI was not associated with MACE in either men (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76, 1.51, p = 0.69) or women (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62, 1.56, p = 0.95). In conclusion, WHR is associated with a higher risk of MACE among women with CAD but not in men. There was no obesity paradox when assessing obesity by BMI in patients with CAD when including nonfatal events.

Validation of a White-light 3D Body Volume Scanner to Assess Body Composition.

INTRODUCTION: Estimating body fat content has shown to be a better predictor of adiposity-related cardiovascular risk than the commonly used body mass index (BMI). The white-light 3D body volume index (BVI) scanner is a non-invasive device normally used in the clothing industry to assess body shapes and sizes. We assessed the hypothesis that volume obtained by BVI is comparable to the volume obtained by air displacement plethysmography (Bod-Pod) and thus capable of assessing body fat mass using the bi-compartmental principles of body composition. METHODS: We compared BVI to Bod-pod, a validated bicompartmental method to assess body fat percent that uses pressure/volume relationships in isothermal conditions to estimate body volume. Volume is then used to calculate body density (BD) applying the formula density=Body Mass/Volume. Body fat mass percentage is then calculated using the Siri formula (4.95/BD - 4.50) × 100. Subjects were undergoing a wellness evaluation. Measurements from both devices were obtained the same day. A prediction model for total Bod-pod volume was developed using linear regression based on 80% of the observations (N=971), as follows: Predicted Bod-pod Volume (L)=9.498+0.805*(BVI volume, L)-0.0411*(Age, years)-3.295*(Male=0, Female=1)+0.0554*(BVI volume, L)*(Male=0, Female=1)+0.0282*(Age, years)*(Male=0, Female=1). Predictions for Bod-pod volume based on the estimated model were then calculated for the remaining 20% (N=243) and compared to the volume measured by the Bod-pod. RESULTS: Mean age among the 971 individuals was 41.5 ± 12.9 years, 39.4% were men, weight 81.6 ± 20.9 kg, BMI was 27.8 ± 6.3kg/m2. Average difference between volume measured by Bod-pod- predicted volume by BVI was 0.0 L, median: -0.4 L, IQR: -1.8 L to 1.5 L, R2=0.9845. Average difference between body fat measured-predicted was-1%, median: -2.7%, IQR: -13.2 to 9.9, R2=0.9236. CONCLUSION: Volume and BFM can be estimated by using volume measurements obtained by a white- light 3D body scanner and the prediction model developed in this study.