Skip to main content
Log in

Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy

  • SPECIAL REPORT
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Surgeons have rapidly adopted minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques for a wide range of applications since the first laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 1983. At the helm of this MIS shift has been laparoscopy, with robotic surgery also gaining ground in a number of areas.

Methods

Researchers estimated national volumes, growth forecasts, and MIS adoption rates for the following procedures: cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastric bypass, ventral hernia repair, colectomy, prostatectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and myomectomy. MIS adoption rates are based on secondary research, interviews with clinicians and administrators involved in MIS, and a review of clinical literature, where available. Overall volume estimates and growth forecasts are sourced from The Advisory Board Company’s national demand model which provides current and future utilization rate projections for inpatient and outpatient services. The model takes into account demographics (growth and aging of the population) as well as non demographic factors such as inpatient to outpatient shift, increase in disease prevalence, technological advancements, coverage expansion, and changing payment models.

Results

Surgeons perform cholecystectomy, a relatively simple procedure, laparoscopically in 96 % of the cases. Use of the robot as a tool in laparoscopy is gaining traction in general surgery and seeing particular growth within colorectal surgery. Surgeons use robotic surgery in 15 % of colectomy cases, far behind that of prostatectomy but similar to that of hysterectomy, which have robotic adoption rates of 90 and 20 %, respectively.

Conclusions

Surgeons are using minimally invasive surgical techniques, primarily laparoscopy and robotic surgery, to perform procedures that were previously done as open surgery. As risk-based pressures mount, hospital executives will increasingly scrutinize the cost of new technology and the impact it has on patient outcomes. These changing market dynamics may thwart the expansion of new surgical techniques and heighten emphasis on competency standards.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bhattacharya K (2007) Kurt Semm: a laparoscopic crusader. J Minim Access Surg 3(1):35–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelley WE (2008) The evolution of laparoscopy and the revolution in surgery in the decade of the 1990s. JSLS 12:351–357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dubois F, Icard P, Berthelot G, Levard H (1990) Coelioscopic cholecystectomy: preliminary report of 36 cases. Ann Surg 211:60–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ingraham AM, Cohen ME, Richards KE, Pritts TA, Ko CY, Esposito TJ (2010) Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 185 ACS NSQIP hospitals. Surgery 148(4):625–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Belyansky I (2013) Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 27(1):109–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vaid S, Tucker J, Bell T, Grim R, Ahuja V (2012) Cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open colectomy in patients with colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population database. Am Surg 78(6):635–641

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liska D, Lee SW, Nandakumar G (2012) Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(3):165–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jacoby VL, Autry A, Jacobson G, Domush R, Nakagawa S, Jacoby A (2009) Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches. Obstet Gynecol 114(5):1041–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wright J, Burke W, Wilde E, Lewin S, Charles A, Kim J, Goldman N, Neugut A, Herzog T, Hershman D (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(8):783–791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barbash G, Glied S (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Authors are researchers with the Technology Insights group at The Advisory Board Company. For more information, please visit http://www.advisory.com/Research/Technology-Insights.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Tsui.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tsui, C., Klein, R. & Garabrant, M. Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27, 2253–2257 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2973-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2973-9

Keywords

Navigation