By Dr. Huong Luu, Project Lead, Statistics, Alberta Real World Evidence Consortium

One of the most rewarding aspects of this project was being closely involved in the study design and analysis of a real-world question that was important to patients, clinicians, and the healthcare system.

The key challenge was making meaningful comparisons between different surgical approaches. The choice of surgical approach is part of clinical decision-making and is not random, so patients receiving different approaches may already differ in ways that can influence their outcomes. This made careful study design and thoughtful analytical approaches particularly important. It reinforced for me that, in real-world research, the quality of the evidence depends not only on the statistical methods used, but also on how well we understand the clinical context and the decisions that shape the data.

The project also highlighted the value of collaboration and guidance from AHS, data custodians, clinicians, and surgeons. Their perspectives helped me better understand the data and its nuances, as well as the clinical context, and think more carefully about how the research questions should be approached. Their input, combined with epidemiological and statistical perspectives, helped us develop an analysis that was both methodologically rigorous and clinically meaningful.

This experience reminded me that good research is not simply about finding an answer in the data. It is about asking the right question, understanding the context behind the data, recognizing its limitations, and working collaboratively to produce evidence that can be useful in practice. Seeing the work published and its contribution to the broader discussion of robotic surgery in Alberta was especially rewarding and reinforced my interest in research that connects rigorous methodology with real-world healthcare questions.

Before making decisions about robotic surgical equipment in Alberta, the provincial health authority needed local evidence on how robotic-assisted surgery compared to conventional approaches for patients and the health system. With funding from Intuitive Surgical, the ARWEC team designed and independently conducted a study to address this evidence gap.

The study, published in July 2026, compared outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic and open hysterectomy. Key findings:

1. Shorter surgery time – robotic surgery was 15 minutes shorter than laparoscopic surgery and 5 minutes longer than open surgery.
2. Shorter length of hospital stay – 1 day for robotic surgery versus 2 days for laparoscopic surgery and 4 days for open surgery.
3. Fewer complications and readmissions – reduced probabilities of blood transfusions, complications, infections, and readmissions for robotic surgery than open surgery but no difference versus laparoscopic surgery. Read more →

Dr. Tara Klassen, Innovation Lead, Surgical Care, Acute Care Alberta, summarized the impact of the study, stating:

“The Alberta Real World Evidence Consortium helped generate the local evidence needed to better understand the impacts of robotic-assisted hysterectomy on patients and the healthcare system. By leveraging real-world data from Alberta, the study addressed questions identified by provincial leaders and contributed to a growing body of evidence supporting informed decision-making around surgical innovation.The findings have helped shape broader discussions on robotic surgery strategy, implementation, and future planning across Alberta’s health system. This work underscores the importance of using local evidence to guide decisions about emerging healthcare technologies.”