
==== Front
J Robot Surg
J Robot Surg
Journal of Robotic Surgery
1863-2483
1863-2491
Springer London London

39230755
2031
10.1007/s11701-024-02031-4
Research
Impact of robotic-assisted surgery on length of hospital stay in Paris public hospitals: a retrospective analysis
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5829-8167
Blanc Thomas thomas.blanc@aphp.fr

123
Capito Carmen 12
Lambert Edward 245
Mordant Pierre 2367
Audenet François 238
de la Taille Alexandre 29
Peycelon Matthieu 2310
Cattan Pierre 2311
Assouad Jalal 212
Penna Christophe 213
Borghese Bruno 231415
Roupret Morgan 4
1 https://ror.org/05tr67282 grid.412134.1 0000 0004 0593 9113 Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, 149 rue de Sèvres, 75743, Paris Cedex 15, France
2 https://ror.org/00pg5jh14 grid.50550.35 0000 0001 2175 4109 Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
3 https://ror.org/05f82e368 grid.508487.6 0000 0004 7885 7602 Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
4 grid.462844.8 0000 0001 2308 1657 Sorbonne University, GRC 5 Predictive Onco-Uro, AP-HP, Urology, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, France
5 J-ERUS/YAU Academic Urologists Working Group on Robot-Assisted Surgery, Paris, France
6 grid.462432.5 0000 0004 4684 943X Inserm, Physiopathologie et épidémiologie des maladies respiratoires, Paris, France
7 grid.411119.d 0000 0000 8588 831X Department of Vascular Surgery, Thoracic Surgery, and Lung Transplantation, Hôpital Bichat, INSERM 1152, Paris, France
8 grid.414093.b 0000 0001 2183 5849 Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France
9 grid.412116.1 0000 0004 1799 3934 Department of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, University of Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
10 grid.413235.2 0000 0004 1937 0589 Department of Pediatric General Surgery and Urology, Robert-Debré University Hospital, National Reference Center for Rare Urinary Malformations (C.R.M.R. MARVU), Paris, France
11 https://ror.org/049am9t04 grid.413328.f 0000 0001 2300 6614 Digestive Surgery, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France
12 grid.50550.35 0000 0001 2175 4109 Department of Thoracic Surgery, Tenon Hospital, Sorbonne University-Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
13 grid.460789.4 0000 0004 4910 6535 Department of Digestive Surgery, APHP, Hôpital Bicêtre, Université Paris Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicetre, France
14 grid.411784.f 0000 0001 0274 3893 Service de Chirurgie Gynécologie Obstétrique II et Médecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital Universitaire Paris Centre (HUPC), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, Paris, France
15 grid.462098.1 0000 0004 0643 431X Genomics, Epigenetics and Physiopathology of Reproduction Team, Department of Development, Reproduction and Cancer, INSERM U1016, Paris, France
4 9 2024
4 9 2024
2024
18 1 3328 6 2024
21 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The number of available hospital beds is decreasing in many countries. Reducing the length of hospital stay (LOS) and increasing bed turnover could improve patient flow. We evaluated whether robot-assisted surgery (RAS) had a beneficial impact on the LOS in a French hospital trust with a long-established robotic program (Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP). We extracted data from “Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information” to determine the median LOS for adults in our trust after RAS versus laparoscopy and open surgery in 2021–2022 for eight target procedures, and compared data nationally and at similar academic centres (same database). We also calculated the number of hospitalisation days ‘saved’ using RAS. Overall, 9326 target procedures were performed at AP-HP: 3864 (41.4%) RAS, 2978 (31.9%) laparoscopies, and 2484 (26.6%) open surgeries. The median LOS for RAS was lower than laparoscopy and open surgery for all procedures, apart from hysterectomy and colectomy (equivalent to laparoscopy). Results for urological procedures at AP-HP reflected national values. The equivalent of 5390 hospitalisation days was saved in 2021–2022 using RAS instead of open surgery or laparoscopy at AP-HP; of these, 86% represented hospitalisation days saved using RAS in urological procedures. Using RAS instead of open surgery or laparoscopy (particularly in urological procedures) reduced the median LOS and may save thousands of hospitalisation days every year. This should help to increase patient turnover and facilitate patient flow.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11701-024-02031-4.

Keywords

Laparoscopy
Length of hospital stay
Open surgery
Robot-assisted surgery
issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The number of hospital beds has fallen in many countries over the past few decades [1]. Although low bed numbers may demonstrate efficient patient care and a faster return to home, they can also lead to high bed occupancy rates. This makes it difficult to find beds for patients and affects patient flow, increasing the already heavy burden on a dwindling supply of nurses [2].

One solution is to reduce the length of hospital stay (LOS), i.e., the number of days that an inpatient will remain in hospital. This measure is often used to improve patient care, appropriately allocate resources where needed, and reduce overall costs [3]. A long hospital stay can lead to patient complications (e.g., infections or falls that could further prolong the LOS) and higher costs [4]. Reducing hospital stay and bed occupancy while maintaining optimum patient care should help to improve patient flow and lead to more efficient operational planning and performance [5].

Many factors can affect how long a patient needs to stay in hospital [6, 7]. In surgical patients, the type of procedure used has an impact on hospital stay; using minimally invasive surgery where possible instead of open surgery significantly reduces LOS [8–10], with robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) leading to a further reduction [11–16]. A robotic program has been long established at the Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), a network of 39 University Hospitals operating in and around Paris, France, and the largest hospital system in Europe. A robotic system was first installed in 1999 at Broussais Hospital and moved to Georges Pompidou European Hospital for cardiac procedures, followed by two more robotic systems in 2000 (Mondor Hospital) and 2004 (La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital), which were mainly dedicated to urological procedures. In 2019, nine additional systems were bought. Since then, 13 robotic systems have been in use at AP-HP, allowing 2200 RAS procedures to be performed in 2021 and 2250 in 2022.

Our long robotic experience using standardised procedures within different surgical specialties makes us ideal to evaluate the impact that RAS has had on LOS within our hospital trust. Therefore, we aimed to use a French national database to determine the median LOS after RAS, laparoscopy, and open surgery in AP-HP and compare the data with values nationally and at similar academic centres, using the same database. We also calculated the estimated number of hospitalisation days that we were able to ‘save’ using RAS. Our hypothesis was that RAS has had a beneficial impact on LOS within AP-HP, and that using RAS would reduce the number of hospitalisation days compared with open surgery.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of data obtained from the prospective French national database “Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information” (PMSI). All patients signed informed consent to authorize prospective data collection and retrospective data analysis. The database was declared to the National Board for Informatics and Freedom (Commission Nationale Informatique et Liberté, CNIL, authorization #2217817) and to the National Institute for Health Data (Institut National des Données de Santé, INDS, authorization #MR1313290420). The PMSI is used to comprehensively record data for every surgery in all French hospitals. Each surgical procedure is encoded according to the specific Classification Commune des Actes Médicaux (CCAM) classification. In mid-2019, codes for RAS were created for urological, gynaecological, colorectal, and thoracic procedures, thus enabling surgical activity to be measured and traced within each hospital and at the national level.

In our analysis, all robotic surgeries performed at AP-HP hospitals were included and compared to those at the national level and at similar French academic hospitals (presumably with similar patient profiles to AP-HP). There were no exclusions, apart from surgeries that were performed at paediatric hospitals (which carry out 200 paediatric RAS per year). As RAS codes were not exhaustive for 2019, and because surgical activity was impacted by COVID-19 in 2020, only data for 2021 and 2022 were retrieved. The procedures for which RAS were used (and for which there was sufficient volume to allow analysis) were radical prostatectomy, partial and total nephrectomy, benign and malignant hysterectomy, rectal resection, colectomy, and pulmonary lobectomy. For the purposes of this article, we were only granted access to selected data within the PMSI (such as diagnoses, surgical procedure, LOS [17]). Thus, the outcomes extracted from the PMSI were a) the use of RAS compared with laparoscopy or open surgery for each procedure at AP-HP in relation to the French national average, and b) the median (interquartile range, IQR) LOS for each surgical technique at AP-HP versus the national median and the median at other academic hospitals. As the PMSI is a medico-administrative database, not a clinical evidence database, no cleaning methods were applied. No person-level information was used and there is no data linkage with other databases. For further information, please refer to the Technical Agency for Information on Hospitalization [17].

We then estimated the theoretical number of hospitalisation days that had been saved using RAS at AP-HP. To do this, we used the PMSI 2021–2022 data to obtain the average proportion of open and laparoscopic surgeries performed in non-equipped hospitals at the national level. We applied this percentage to the number of RAS performed at AP-HP in 2021–2022 to estimate the number of laparoscopic and open surgeries that could have taken place if RAS had not been used at AP-HP. Next, we applied the median LOS for laparoscopy and open surgery in non-equipped hospitals at the national level (PMSI 2021–2022) to this estimated volume of laparoscopic and open surgeries at AP-HP. This enabled us to determine the theoretical number of hospitalisation days that would have been recorded if AP-HP had not used RAS, and all patients had instead been treated with laparoscopy or open surgery. From this value, we subtracted the number of hospitalisation days actually recorded after RAS at AP-HP (PMSI 2021–2022), to give an estimated number of hospitalisation days ‘saved’ using RAS at AP-HP.

Data were extracted from PMSI 2021–2022 for eight hospitals (11 robotic systems) within AP-HP that have an RAS program, which does not include the two paediatric hospitals (Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital and Robert-Debré Hospital). Results below are highlighted for urological procedures, as the corresponding robotic program within AP-HP is larger and longer established than in other departments. The higher number of robotic urological surgeries performed (beyond average usage in France) will provide a greater insight into the impact of RAS at AP-HP. To give an overall perspective, results are also provided for all of the other RAS indications already listed for which there was a sufficient volume to allow analysis. All data can be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Results

Use of RAS at AP-HP versus the national average

As illustrated in Table 1, 9326 target procedures were performed at AP-HP in 2021–2022: 3864 (41.4%) RAS, 2978 (31.9%) laparoscopies, and 2484 (26.6%) open surgeries. Compared to national values, the rate of minimally invasive surgery (RAS and laparoscopy) was higher at AP-HP for prostatectomy, partial nephrectomy, and benign and malign hysterectomy, while the rate of RAS alone was higher for all procedures but particularly for prostatectomy, partial and total nephrectomy, and benign and malignant hysterectomy. Table 1 Use of RAS compared with open surgery and laparoscopy at AP-HP in 2021–2022 (source: PMSI 2021–2022)

	AP-HP	National data	
Total	RAS	Open surgery	Laparoscopies	RAS	Open surgery	Laparoscopies	
N	n	%	n	%	n	%	%	%	%	
Prostatectomy	1377	1171	85.0	71	5.2	135	9.8	58.5	18.4	23.1	
Nephrectomy	
 Partial	1037	780	75.2	192	18.5	65	6.3	56.3	24.0	19.7	
 Total	1030	448	43.5	327	31.7	255	24.8	19.4	29.7	50.9	
Hysterectomy	
 Benign	1601	533	33.3	354	22.1	714	44.6	4.9	30.4	64.7	
 Malign	592	333	56.2	100	16.9	159	26.9	11.3	29.0	59.7	
Pulmonary lobectomy	1621	333	20.5	818	50.5	470	29.0	12.3	41.6	46.1	
Rectal resections	818	143	17.5	280	34.2	395	48.3	9.2	24.3	66.5	
Colectomies	1250	123	9.8	342	27.4	785	62.8	4.9	26.8	68.3	
Total	9 326	3 864	41.4	2 484	26.6	2 978	31.9	–	–	–	
Values in bold indicate the surgery(s) where the proportion (%) of procedures performed using RAS at AP-HP is higher than the national value

AP-HP Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, PMSI Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information, RAS robotic-assisted surgery

Median LOS at AP-HP versus the national value and other academic centres

Online Resource 1 shows that the median LOS for urological procedures using RAS at AP-HP was lower than both laparoscopy (by 1 day each for prostatectomy, partial nephrectomy, and total nephrectomy) and open surgery (by up to 4 days for prostatectomy, 2 days for partial nephrectomy, and 3 days for total nephrectomy). This reflects the trend observed nationally. However, while the median LOS at other academic centres was always lower with RAS than open surgery, it was otherwise comparable between RAS and laparoscopy.

In other indications at AP-HP, the median LOS was lower for RAS than open surgery for all procedures, but was only lower than laparoscopy for pulmonary lobectomy and rectal resections. Nationally and at other academic centres, the median LOS was always lower with RAS than open surgery, but values were otherwise generally similar to laparoscopy.

Hospitalisation days saved

Overall, the equivalent of 5390 hospitalisation days were saved in 2021–2022 using RAS instead of open surgery or laparoscopy at AP-HP (Table 2). In particular, 2150 days were saved for prostatectomy, 1630 days for partial nephrectomy, and 840 days for total nephrectomy (i.e. 86% in urological procedures). The number of hospitalisation days saved in the other indications was lower due to the lower number of procedures performed, ranging from 0 days for pulmonary lobectomy to 370 days for benign hysterectomy. Table 2 Estimated number of hospitalisation days saved within each indication using RAS at AP-HP (source: PMSI 2021–2022)a

Indication	Hospitalisation days saved with RAS, n	
Prostatectomy	2 150	
Nephrectomy	
 Partial	1 630	
 Total	840	
Hysterectomy	
 Benign	370	
 Malignant	120	
Pulmonary lobectomy	0	
Rectal resections	150	
Colectomies	130	
Total	5 390	
aSee Methods section for calculation

AP-HP Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, PMSI Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information, RAS robotic-assisted surgery

Discussion

The length of a hospital stay is an important indicator of how efficiently hospitals are managed, and has an impact on bed turnover. In addition to direct benefits for patients (including lower risk for readmission and mortality) [18], reducing the LOS should free up beds for new admissions and increase patient turnover—allowing more patients to be treated efficiently. In France, the average length of hospital stay (LOS) in 2019 was 8.8 days, which had decreased from 10.5 days in 2009 but was still higher than many other countries [19].

Minimally invasive surgeries such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery require smaller incisions, involve less trauma and blood loss, and result in faster recovery than traditional open surgery. Many meta-analyses have demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery significantly reduces LOS compared with open surgery [8–10]. It has also been shown that further reductions in LOS can be made using robotic surgery instead of laparoscopic surgery [11–16]. However, LOS varies considerably among patients with different diagnoses; even within the same diagnosis, LOS can be affected by factors, such as comorbidity, surgeon expertise, institutional volume, and differences in treatment complexity [3, 11].

We decided to analyse data within our own hospital trust (which has a long-established, high-volume robotic program and a higher rate of RAS than the French national average), using outcomes extracted from a prospective, national database of surgical outcomes (PMSI). Data for our largest robotic program in urology showed that the median LOS for such procedures in 2021–2022 (the first full years since codes for RAS were created) was always shorter after RAS than open and laparoscopic surgery. Comparison with the median LOS at the national level (using the same database and timeframe) confirmed that using RAS instead of laparoscopy or open surgery reduces hospital stay after urological procedures within France. These findings are consistent with those reported in the literature [11–13].

Analysis of the other types of procedures performed at AP-HP demonstrated that the median LOS was always lower with RAS than open surgery. When compared to laparoscopy, the median LOS was lower with RAS when used for pulmonary lobectomy and rectal resections and comparable when used for benign and malignant hysterectomy and colectomy. These results are encouraging, because RAS activity only began 3–4 years ago within some of these departments. At both the national level and at other academic centres, using RAS for these other indications always resulted in a lower median LOS than open surgery; when compared to laparoscopy, the median LOS was similar to RAS across these indications. It should be noted that the comparison of LOS following pulmonary lobectomy is mitigated by the fact that pulmonary lobectomy and segmentectomy have the same PMSI code, introducing a classification bias in the analysis.

We calculated that the reductions in the median LOS seen at AP-HP in 2021–2022 would have led to the equivalent of 5390 days of hospitalisation ‘saved’ by using RAS across all indications, including 4620 days saved for urological procedures alone. These savings could potentially enable surgical volume to be increased without the need for additional nurses. Furthermore, although we did not conduct a cost analysis, the reduction in hospital stay should translate into reduced costs and a more cost-efficient service [20].

A strength of our study is that a large number of hospitals (eight hospitals with 11 robots) from a single trust were included in the analysis. Although we have greater experience in robotic surgery compared with some hospitals, the comparison with national values and similar academic centres gives a better overall perspective of the impact of robotic surgery on LOS in France and suggests that our results could be generalised to less experienced hospitals. However, it was noticeable that the median LOS after laparoscopy and/or open surgery was sometimes longer in AP-HP than the averages nationally and in other academic hospitals (e.g., for malignant hysterectomy, lobectomy). This could be the result of a shortage of postoperative facility care in Paris or the lack of coordinating nurses in most hospitals of our public network. The observation may be of importance, because although LOS was substantially reduced using RAS at AP-HP, the impact in other hospitals might not be as apparent. Furthermore, LOS is not just influenced by the surgical approach, but also by the level of perioperative care (e.g., implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols). It is imperative that such information is included in any future data analysis. Even so, any reduction in LOS is to be welcomed. It is possible that an earlier discharge from hospital would have an impact on both the rate of readmission and the associated LOS after readmission. It is a limitation of our study that we do not yet have the readmission data for analysis, and we plan to follow-up with further morbidity, mortality, and readmission data when available. Previous research suggests, however, that there may be a lower risk of readmission in patients with a shorter LOS [18, 21]. In fact, the main limitation of our analysis was that the PMSI database did not include important parameters linked to disease characteristics and functional outcomes, which may affect the intraoperative process, intra- and postoperative complications, recovery times, etc. We were limited to analysis of the type of surgical approach and LOS. Clinical outcomes are also important drivers of health economics. A cost analysis would have been beneficial to verify the economic benefits of using RAS instead of laparoscopy or open surgery. In addition, only 2021–2022 data were included (the most recent years for which enough data were available), taken from a single database. The scope needs to be widened, and analysis of registry data will be performed after this initial analysis, including a closer look at patient characteristics that might have an impact on outcomes.

Conclusion

Results from the AP-HP—a hospital network that uses robotic surgery at a higher rate for many common procedures than the national average—indicated that using RAS instead of laparoscopy or open surgery reduced the median length of hospital stay and potentially saved thousands of hospitalisation days every year. Ensuring patients receive optimum care while reducing the time they need to recover in hospital will enable more beneficial outcomes in patients and could increase patient turnover without the need for additional resources.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (PDF 62 KB)

Acknowledgements

The draft manuscript was edited by Deborah Nock (Medical WriteAway, Norwich, UK), funded by Intuitive Surgical and with full review and approval by the authors.

Author contributions

Thomas Blanc and Morgan Roupret contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed by all authors, while data analysis was performed by Thomas Blanc, Carmen Capito, Bruno Borghese, and Morgan Roupret. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Thomas Blanc, Carmen Capito, and Morgan Roupret. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript, and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that the services of the medical writer were funded by Intuitive Surgical Sàrl, but otherwise no funds or grants were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Data availability

All data can be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Declarations

Competing interests

Thomas Blanc, Alexandre de la Taille, Jalal Assouad and Morgan Roupret are all official proctors for Intuitive Surgical Sàrl. The other authors declare that they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Conflict of interest

Thomas Blanc, Alexandre de la Taille, Jalal Assouad, and Morgan Roupret are all official proctors for Intuitive Surgical Sàrl. Carmen Capito, Edward Lambert, Pierre Mordant, François Audenet, Matthieu Peycelon, Pierre Cattan, Christophe Penna, and Bruno Borghese have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. All authors had complete access to the study data that support this publication.

Publisher's Note

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

1. OECD. Hospital beds (indicator) (2023). https://data.oecd.org/healtheqt/hospital-beds.htm (10.1787/0191328e-en); Accessed 27 May 2023
2. Buchan J, Catton H. Recover to rebuild. Investing in the nursing workforce for health system effectiveness (International Council of Nurses, March 2023). (2023). https://www.icn.ch/system/files/2023-03/ICN_Recover-to-Rebuild_report_EN.pdf; Accessed 27 May 2023
3. Stone K Zwiggelaar R Jones P Mac Parthaláin N A systematic review of the prediction of hospital length of stay: towards a unified framework PLOS Digit Health 2022 1 e0000017 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000017 36812502
Stone K, Zwiggelaar R, Jones P, Mac Parthaláin N (2022) A systematic review of the prediction of hospital length of stay: towards a unified framework. PLOS Digit Health 1:e0000017. 10.1371/journal.pdig.000001736812502 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000017
4. Rojas-García A Turner S Pizzo E Hudson E Thomas J Raine R Impact and experiences of delayed discharge: a mixed-studies systematic review Health Expect 2018 21 41 56 10.1111/hex.12619 28898930
Rojas-García A, Turner S, Pizzo E, Hudson E, Thomas J, Raine R (2018) Impact and experiences of delayed discharge: a mixed-studies systematic review. Health Expect 21:41–56. 10.1111/hex.1261928898930 10.1111/hex.12619
5. Ravaghi H Alidoost S Mannion R Bélorgeot VD Models and methods for determining the optimal number of beds in hospitals and regions: a systematic scoping review BMC Health Serv Res 2020 20 186 10.1186/s12913-020-5023-z 32143700
Ravaghi H, Alidoost S, Mannion R, Bélorgeot VD (2020) Models and methods for determining the optimal number of beds in hospitals and regions: a systematic scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 20:186. 10.1186/s12913-020-5023-z32143700 10.1186/s12913-020-5023-z
6. Ransome E Tooba T Philip B Andrew C Factors influencing length of hospital stay and hospital charges in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a five-year population based study: P-039 Am J Gastroenterol 2018 113 S10 10.14309/00000434-201802001-00039
Ransome E, Tooba T, Philip B, Andrew C (2018) Factors influencing length of hospital stay and hospital charges in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a five-year population based study: P-039. Am J Gastroenterol 113:S1010.14309/00000434-201802001-00039
7. Effective Health Care Program, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville M. Research Protocol: Interventions to Decrease Hospital Length of Stay. (2020). https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/hospital-length-of-stay/protocol; accessed 8 Jun 2023.
8. Pfister M Probst P Müller PC Antony P Klotz R Kalkum E Minimally invasive versus open pancreatic surgery: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials BJS open 2023 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad007 37698976
Pfister M, Probst P, Müller PC, Antony P, Klotz R, Kalkum E et al (2023) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatic surgery: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BJS open. 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad00737698976 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad007
9. Roesel R Bernardi L Bonino MA Popeskou SG Garofalo F Cristaudi A Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatic enucleation: systematic review and metanalysis of short-term outcomes HPB (Oxford) 2023 25 603 613 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.014 36958987
Roesel R, Bernardi L, Bonino MA, Popeskou SG, Garofalo F, Cristaudi A (2023) Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatic enucleation: systematic review and metanalysis of short-term outcomes. HPB (Oxford) 25:603–613. 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.01436958987 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.014
10. Chen K Pan Y Liu X-l Jiang G-y Wu D Maher H Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery BMC Gastroenterol 2017 17 120 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9 29169337
Chen K, Pan Y, Liu X-l, Jiang G-y, Wu D, Maher H et al (2017) Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery. BMC Gastroenterol 17:120. 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-929169337 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9
11. Leow JJ Heah NH Chang SL Chong YL Png KS Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: an updated meta-analysis of 4,919 patients J Urol 2016 196 1371 1377 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.011 27291654
Leow JJ, Heah NH, Chang SL, Chong YL, Png KS (2016) Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: an updated meta-analysis of 4,919 patients. J Urol 196:1371–1377. 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.01127291654 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.011
12. Heger P Probst P Hüttner FJ Gooßen K Proctor T Müller-Stich BP Evaluation of open and minimally invasive adrenalectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis World J Surg 2017 41 2746 2757 10.1007/s00268-017-4095-3 28634842
Heger P, Probst P, Hüttner FJ, Gooßen K, Proctor T, Müller-Stich BP et al (2017) Evaluation of open and minimally invasive adrenalectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Surg 41:2746–2757. 10.1007/s00268-017-4095-328634842 10.1007/s00268-017-4095-3
13. Choi JE You JH Kim DK Rha KH Lee SH Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Urol 2015 67 891 901 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.028 25572825
Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH (2015) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:891–901. 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.02825572825 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.028
14. Khajeh E Aminizadeh E Dooghaie Moghadam A Nikbakhsh R Goncalves G Carvalho C Outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer compared with open and laparoscopic surgery Cancers (Basel) 2023 15 839 10.3390/cancers15030839 36765797
Khajeh E, Aminizadeh E, Dooghaie Moghadam A, Nikbakhsh R, Goncalves G, Carvalho C et al (2023) Outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer compared with open and laparoscopic surgery. Cancers (Basel) 15:83936765797 10.3390/cancers15030839
15. Baral S Arawker MH Sun Q Jiang M Wang L Wang Y Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a mega meta-analysis Front Surg 2022 9 895976 10.3389/fsurg.2022.895976 35836604
Baral S, Arawker MH, Sun Q, Jiang M, Wang L, Wang Y et al (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a mega meta-analysis. Front Surg 9:895976. 10.3389/fsurg.2022.89597635836604 10.3389/fsurg.2022.895976
16. Safiejko K Tarkowski R Koselak M Juchimiuk M Tarasik A Pruc M Robotic-assisted vs standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19,731 patients Cancers (Basel) 2021 10.3390/cancers14010180 35008344
Safiejko K, Tarkowski R, Koselak M, Juchimiuk M, Tarasik A, Pruc M et al (2021) Robotic-assisted vs standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19,731 patients. Cancers (Basel). 10.3390/cancers1401018035008344 10.3390/cancers14010180
17. Technical Agency for Information on Hospitalization (ATIH). DRG Manual - Final version 2023. (2023). https://www.atih.sante.fr/manuel-des-ghm-version-definitive-2023; Accessed 18 Mar 2024
18. Han TS Murray P Robin J Wilkinson P Fluck D Fry CH Evaluation of the association of length of stay in hospital and outcomes Int J Qual Health Care 2021 10.1093/intqhc/mzab160
Han TS, Murray P, Robin J, Wilkinson P, Fluck D, Fry CH (2021) Evaluation of the association of length of stay in hospital and outcomes. Int J Qual Health Care. 10.1093/intqhc/mzab16010.1093/intqhc/mzab160
19. OECD (2021) Health at a Glance 2021. Hospital discharges and average length of stay. 10.1787/18faaea9-en; Accessed 27 May 2023
20. Abercrombie J. General Surgery: GIRFT Programme National Specialty Report. (2017). https://gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/GIRFT-GeneralSurgeryReport-Aug17v1.pdf; Accessed 9 Jun 2023
21. Manach Q Rouprêt M Reboul-Marty J Drouin SJ Guillot-Tantay C Matillon X Hospital readmissions after urological surgical procedures in france: a nationwide cohort study over 3 years Eur Urol Focus 2018 4 621 627 10.1016/j.euf.2017.06.001 28753813
Manach Q, Rouprêt M, Reboul-Marty J, Drouin SJ, Guillot-Tantay C, Matillon X et al (2018) Hospital readmissions after urological surgical procedures in france: a nationwide cohort study over 3 years. Eur Urol Focus 4:621–627. 10.1016/j.euf.2017.06.00128753813 10.1016/j.euf.2017.06.001
