[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Original Investigation
July 2016

Effect of Regional Hospital Competition and Hospital Financial Status on the Use of Robotic-Assisted Surgery

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
  • 2Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
  • 3Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
  • 4Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
  • 5Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
  • 6New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York
JAMA Surg. 2016;151(7):612-620. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5508

Importance  Despite the lack of efficacy data, robotic-assisted surgery has diffused rapidly into practice. Marketing to physicians, hospitals, and patients has been widespread, but how this marketing has contributed to the diffusion of the technology remains unknown.

Objective  To examine the effect of regional hospital competition and hospital financial status on the use of robotic-assisted surgery for 5 commonly performed procedures.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A cohort study of 221 637 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, total nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, hysterectomy, or oophorectomy at 1370 hospitals in the United States from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011, was conducted. The association between hospital competition, hospital financial status, and performance of robotic-assisted surgery was examined.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The association between hospital competition was measured with the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), hospital financial status was estimated as operating margin, and performance of robotic-assisted surgery was examined using multivariate mixed-effects regression models.

Results  We identified 221 637 patients who underwent one of the procedures of interest. The cohort included 30 345 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy; 20 802, total nephrectomy; 8060, partial nephrectomy; 134 985, hysterectomy; and 27 445, oophorectomy. Robotic-assisted operations were performed for 20 500 (67.6%) radical prostatectomies, 1405 (6.8%) total nephrectomies, 2759 (34.2%) partial nephrectomies, 14 047 (10.4%) hysterectomies, and 1782 (6.5%) oophorectomies. Use of robotic-assisted surgery increased for each procedure from January 2010 through December 2011. For all 5 operations, increased market competition (as measured by the HHI) was associated with increased use of robotic-assisted surgery. For prostatectomy, the risk ratios (95% CIs) for undergoing a robotic-assisted procedure were 2.20 (1.50-3.24) at hospitals in moderately competitive markets and 2.64 (1.84-3.78) for highly competitive markets compared with noncompetitive markets. For hysterectomy, patients at hospitals in moderately (3.75 [2.26-6.25]) and highly (5.30; [3.27-8.57]) competitive markets were more likely to undergo a robotic-assisted surgery. Increased hospital profitability was associated with use of robotic-assisted surgery only for partial nephrectomy in facilities with medium-high (1.67 [1.13-2.48]) and high (1.50 [0.98-2.29]) operating margins. With analysis limited to patients treated at a hospital that had performed robotic-assisted surgery, there was no longer an association between competition and use of robotic-assisted surgery.

Conclusions and Relevance  Patients undergoing surgery in a hospital in a competitive regional market were more likely to undergo a robotic-assisted procedure. These data imply that regional competition may influence a hospital’s decision to acquire a surgical robot.