Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uptake and outcomes of robotic gynaecological surgery in England (2006–2018): an account of Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This was a retrospective study to review the uptake and outcomes of robotic gynaecological surgery in England between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2018, analysing Hospital Episode Statistics form National Health Service hospitals in England. Women aged 18 years and above who had elective gynaecological surgery were included and those who had undergone robotic gynaecology surgery were included. Robotic gynaecological procedures were defined as procedures that used a robotic minimal access approach for hysterectomy, adnexal surgery and urogynaecological surgery (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy and colposuspension). Numbers of procedures were reviewed by year and mapped to the 44 NHS healthcare regions. Length of stay (nights in hospital), laparotomy (conversion during primary procedure or after return to theatre for management of complication), and 30-day emergency readmission rates were calculated by year and procedure type. Overall 527,217 elective gynaecological procedures were performed in the English NHS (1st April 2006 and 31st March 2018), of which 4384 (0.83%) were performed with robotic assistance (3864 (88%) hysterectomy, 706 (16%) adnexal surgery, 192 (4%) urogynaecological surgery). There was gradual rise in the uptake of robotic surgery but there was a marked geographical variation. Median (IQR) length of stay (LOS) was 1(1–2) night, laparotomy rate was 0.3% and 30-day emergency readmission rate was 4.7%. LOS was statistically, but not clinically, different across time. Other outcomes did not differ by year. Robotic gynaecological procedures are increasingly being used in the English NHS, predominantly for hysterectomy, although in small proportions (2.6% in the most recent study year). There was wide geographical variation in robotic uptake across England and overall, outcomes were comparable to those reported in other countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Study data and material are available and could be shared if needed following appropriate approvals.

Code availability

OPCS-4 surgical procedure codes used in the study are included in the supplementary material. OPCS-4.8 is a publically available document and is appropriately referenced in text.

References

  1. Intuitive Surgical I (2005) Intuitive Surgical Receives FDA Clearance for Gynecological Laparoscopic Procedures. https://isrg.intuitive.com/node/7541/pdf. Accessed 26th Sep 2019

  2. Surgical I (2017) Intuitive Surgical Investor Presentation Q3:2017

    Google Scholar 

  3. Intuitive Surgical I Da Vinci systems. https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/products-and-services/da-vinci/systems##. Accessed 26th Sep 2019

  4. Moss E, Sarhanis P, Ind T, Smith M, Davies Q, Zecca M (2020) The impact of obesity on surgeon ergonomics in robotic and straight stick laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27:1063–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.07.009

  5. Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01717-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, Shi G (2019) Robot‐assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2

  7. Jayakumaran J, Patel S, Gangrade B, Narasimhulu D, Pandian S, Silva C (2017) Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in reproductive surgery: a contemporary review. J Robot Surg 11(2):97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0682-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Miklos JR, Moore RD, Chinthakanan O (2015) Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair: A Systematic Review of the Literature. The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 22(5):727–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Digital N Hospital Episodes Statistics

  10. Digital N Hospital Episodes Statistics—Admitted patient care

  11. Digital N (2017) National Clinical Coding Standards OPCS-4 (2017).

  12. Digital N (2018) Hospital Admitted Patient Care activity, 2016–17: procedures and interventions. Accessed 10th July 2018

  13. digital N (2018) Hospital Episode Statistics Data Dictionary. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/hospital-episode-statistics/hospital-episode-statistics-data-dictionary. Accessed 22nd Aug 2018

  14. England N Local sustainability and transformation partnerships. https://www.england.nhs.uk/integratedcare/stps/view-stps/. Accessed 26th Sep 2019

  15. NHS (2016) Sustainability and Transformation Plan footprints. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/stp-footprints-march-2016.pdf.

  16. Digital N (2018) Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2017–18

  17. Digital N Data Quality Assurance NHS Digital https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/data-quality. Accessed 1st May 2020

  18. Andy Boyd RC, Leigh Johnson, Shirley Simmonds, Holly Syddall, Leo Westbury, et al. (2018) Understanding Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). CLOSER, Institute of Edicationn, University College London

  19. Thorn JC, Turner EL, Hounsome L, Walsh E, Down L, Verne J, Donovan JL, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Martin RM, Noble SM (2016) Validating the use of Hospital Episode Statistics data and comparison of costing methodologies for economic evaluation: an end-of-life case study from the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP). BMJ Open 6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011063

  20. Roger EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chung G, Hinoul P, Coplan P, Yoo A (2020) Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery in prostate, uterus, and colorectal procedures: a retrospective population-based study. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01102-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wright GP, Wolf AM, Chung MH (2015) The rise of the machines: examining national trends in robotic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 221(4):e90–e90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.08.135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stewart CLIP, Melstrom KA et al (2019) Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample. SurgEndosc 33(8):2591–2601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6554-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Damle AMDMBA, Damle RNMDMS, Flahive JMMS, Schlussel ATDO, Davids JSMD, Sturrock PRMD, Maykel JAMD, Alavi KMDMPH (2017) Diffusion of technology: trends in robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. Am J Surg 214(5):820–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Papalekas E, Fisher J (2018) Trends in Route of Hysterectomy after the Implementation of a Comprehensive Robotic Training Program. Minimally Invasive Surgery 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7362489

  26. Wilson CB (2006) Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 332(7533):112–114. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7533.112

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Marcus HJH-HA, Payne CJ et al (2017) Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery: a retrospective observational study. Int J Med Robot 13(4):e1870. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1870

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Stewart CL, Dumitra S, Nota C, Ituarte PHG, Melstrom LG, Woo Y, Singh G, Fong Y, Nathan H, Warner SG (2019) Hospital factors strongly influence robotic use in general surgery. Surgery 166(5):867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.05.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee M-TG, Chiu C-C, Wang C-C, Chang C-N, Lee S-H, Lee M, Hsu T-C, Lee C-C (2017) Trends and outcomes of surgical treatment for colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2012- an analysis using national inpatient database. Sci Rep 7(1):2006–2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02224-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Esen E, Aytac E, Ozben V, Bas M, Bilgin IA, Aghayeva A, Baca B, Hamzaoglu I, Karahasanoglu T (2019) Adoption of robotic technology in Turkey: A nationwide analysis on caseload and platform used. The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery 15 (1):e1962-n/a. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1962

  31. Juo Y-Y, Mantha A, Abiri A, Lin A, Dutson E (2017) Diffusion of robotic-assisted laparoscopic technology across specialties: a national study from 2008 to 2013. SurgEndosc 32(3):1405–1413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5822-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Abrishami P, Boer A (1982) Horstman K (2014) Understanding the adoption dynamics of medical innovations: affordances of the da Vinci robot in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med 117:125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Aggarwal A, Lewis D, Mason M, Purushotham A, Sullivan R, van der Meulen J (2017) Effect of patient choice and hospital competition on service configuration and technology adoption within cancer surgery: a national, population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18(11):1445–1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30572-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Society BGC National Cancer networks. https://www.bgcs.org.uk/professionals/national-cancer-networks/. Accessed 27th Sep 2019

  35. Jones N, Fleming ND, Nick AM, Munsell MF, Rallapalli V, Westin SN, Meyer LA, Schmeler KM, Ramirez PT, Soliman PT (2014) Conversion from robotic surgery to laparotomy: a case–control study evaluating risk factors for conversion. Gynecol Oncol 134(2):238–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.06.008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Lönnerfors C, Reynisson P, Geppert B, Persson J (2015) The effect of increased experience on complications in robotic hysterectomy for malignant and benign gynecological disease. Journal of Robotic Surgery 9(4):321–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0534-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme (14/70/162). The funder was not involved in conducting the research or writing this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Women’s and Children’s CBU, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK

    D. El-Hamamsy & D. Tincello

  2. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, Kings Cross, London, WC1H 9SH, UK

    R. S. Geary, I. Gurol-Urganci & J. van der Meulen

  3. Department of Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK

    D. Tincello

Authors
  1. D. El-Hamamsy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. S. Geary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Gurol-Urganci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. van der Meulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Tincello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was conceived and designed by all authors. RSG and IGU organised the datasets and performed the statistical analysis, DEH wrote the first draft of the manuscript; DEH and IGU wrote the final manuscript, with input from JvdM and DGT. All authors approved the final text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Tincello.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

DGT acted as consultant for Cambridge Medical Robotics Surgical (CMR-surgical), but was not involved in data extraction or analysis. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethics approval

The use of Hospital Episode Statistics data for the purpose evaluations of care delivered by the NHS was approved by the Confidentiality Advisory Group of the NHS Health Research Authority (15/CAG/0148).

Consent to participate

The data are anonymised and, therefore, their use does not require ethical approval and individual-level patient consent.

Consent for publication

The data are anonymised and, therefore, their use does not require ethical approval and individual-level patient consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El-Hamamsy, D., Geary, R.S., Gurol-Urganci, I. et al. Uptake and outcomes of robotic gynaecological surgery in England (2006–2018): an account of Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES). J Robotic Surg 16, 81–88 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01197-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01197-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation