Factors Impacting Use of Robotic Surgery for Treatment of Endometrial Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to examine the impact of patient socioeconomic, clinical, and hospital characteristics on the utilization of robotics in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer. METHODS: Patients surgically treated for endometrial cancer at facilities that offered robotic and open approaches were identified from the National Inpatient Sample Database from 2008 to 2012. The groups were compared for socioeconomic, clinical, and hospital differences. Medical comorbidity scores were calculated using the Charlson comorbidity index. T tests and χ (2) were used to compare groups. Multivariable analyses were used to determine factors that were independently associated with a robotic approach. RESULTS: A total of 18,284 patients were included (robotic, n = 7169; laparotomy, n = 11,115). Significant differences were noted in all patient clinical and socioeconomic characteristics and all hospital characteristics. Multivariable analyses identified factors that independently predicted patients undergoing robotic surgery. These patients were older [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.008; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.004-1.011], white (aOR 1.38; 95 % CI 1.27-1.50), and privately insured (aOR 1.16; 95 % CI 1.07-1.26). Clinically, these women were more likely to be obese (aOR 1.20; 95 % CI 1.11-1.30) and to be undergoing an elective case (aOR 1.25; 95 % CI 1.11-1.40). Hospitals were more likely to be under private control (aOR 1.55, 95 % CI 1.39-1.71) but less likely to be located in the south (aOR 0.87; 0.81-0.93), quantified as large or medium (aOR 0.57; 95 %CI 0.50-0.67), or teaching hospitals (aOR 0.68; 95 % CI 0.63-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic status and hospital characteristics are factors that independently predict robotic utilization in the United States. These racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities warrant further study regarding the utilization of this important technology.

Preparedness of Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents for Fellowship Training.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perceptions of fellowship program directors of incoming clinical fellows for subspecialty training. METHODS: A validated survey by the American College of Surgeons was modified and distributed to all fellowship program directors in four subspecialties within obstetrics and gynecology: female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, and reproductive endocrinology-infertility. The 59-item survey explored five domains concerning preparedness for fellowship: professionalism, independent practice, psychomotor ability, clinical evaluation, and academic scholarship. A Likert scale with five responses was used and tailored to each subspecialty. Standard statistical methods were used to compare responses between subspecialties and to analyze data within each subspecialty individually. RESULTS: One hundred thirty directors completed the survey, for a response rate of 60%. In the domain of professionalism, more than 88% of participants stated that incoming fellows had appropriate interactions with faculty and staff. Scores in this domain were lower for gynecologic oncology respondents (P=.046). Responses concerning independent practice of surgical procedures (hysterectomy, pelvic reconstruction, and minimally invasive) were overwhelmingly negative. Only 20% of first-year fellows were able to independently perform a vaginal hysterectomy, 46% an abdominal hysterectomy, and 34% basic hysteroscopic procedures. Appropriate postoperative care (63%) and management of the critically ill patient (71%) were rated adequate for all subspecialties. CONCLUSION: Graduating residents may be underprepared for advanced subspecialty training, necessitating an evaluation of the current structure of resident and fellow curriculum. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.