Economic evaluations of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and the factors affecting its cost-effectiveness: a systematic review.

This systematic review aims to summarize the progress made in the study of the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) worldwide and to analyze the economic factors influencing this, in an attempt to provide methodological guidance for conducting economic evaluation studies in a domestic context, and to put forward suggestions for improving the cost-effectiveness of RARP in emerging markets. We conducted a systematic literature review and analysis of studies published worldwide from January 2000 to July 2024 concerning the economic evaluation of RARP compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP). A total of 16 papers were included. The literature was generally of good quality. Methodological approaches. varied among studies, leading to inconsistent economic findings. The choice of research settings, including the perspective of the study and time horizon, as well as differences in parameters such as surgical volumes and cost of equipment purchases, were the main factors that affected the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Based on the methodology used in the included studies, we suggest that short-term, localized economic evaluations should be carried out first, based on follow-up studies in emerging markets, whereas long-term economic evaluations can be performed when sufficient data are available. Referring to the analysis of the economic factors influencing cost-effectiveness in the included studies, we suggest that different research settings should be chosen according to the purpose for which policymakers allocate public funds, and that the cost-effectiveness of RARP can be enhanced through technical improvements and resource optimization.

Are all robotic technologies created equal? Comparing one of the latest image-free robotic technologies to all other robotic systems for total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted technologies have been developed to increase surgical precision and reduce surgical variability in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Several different robotic systems have been introduced in the last decade for TKA. The DePuy Synthes VELYS™ Robotic-Assisted Solution (VRAS) is an imageless system designed to eliminate the need for preoperative CT scans and is one of the latest entrants in the rapidly evolving field of robotic technology in TKA. This study compared the clinical and economic outcomes associated with VRAS and other robotic-assisted technologies for primary TKA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using the Premier Healthcare Database included patients who underwent primary TKA with VRAS or other robotic-assisted technologies from January 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023. The primary outcome for the study was hospital follow-up visits (revisits) within 90 days post-TKA. Secondary outcomes included readmission and revision rates within 90 days post-TKA, operating room time, length of stay, discharge status and hospital costs. Cohorts were balanced using propensity score fine stratification, and generalized linear models were constructed to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 827 VRAS TKA patients and 16,428 TKA patients treated with other robotic-assisted technologies. The 90-day all-cause and knee-related revisit rates were significantly lower for VRAS than for other robotic-assisted technologies (all-cause 13.9% vs. 22.8% and knee-related 2.8% vs. 5.4%, respectively; p value < 0.01). The all-cause and knee-related 90-day readmission rates were also lower for VRAS, although the differences were not statistically significant. The 90-day revision rates were similar for VRAS and other robotic-assisted technologies (0.48% vs. 0.45%), as was the operating room time (138 vs. 137 min). The 90-day knee-related cost for the VRAS cohort was $15,048 compared to $16,867 for other robotic technologies. CONCLUSIONS: This database study demonstrated that early postoperative revisit rates and total cost of care are lower for VRAS than for all other robotic-assisted technologies for TKA, while operating room time and discharge status were similar. These are important findings in ever-evolving healthcare systems that are increasingly cost conscious and cognizant of principles associated with value-based care.

Endoscopic injection vs anti-reflux surgery for moderate- and high-grade vesicoureteral reflux in children: a cost-effectiveness international study.

Even if vesicoureteral reflux is a common condition in children, there are no guidelines about the best therapeutic approach. This study aims to compare the results of endoscopic injection and ureteral reimplantation in children with grade III, IV and V VUR. A multicenter retrospective study included children with grade III, IV and V VUR treated from 2003 to 2018 at three Departments of Pediatric Surgery. Patients were divided into Group A (endoscopic injections) and Group B (anti-reflux surgery), B1 (open, OUR), B2 (laparoscopic, LUR) and B3 (robot-assisted laparoscopic RALUR). Follow-up was at least 5 years. 400 patients were included, 232 (58%) in group A and 168 (42%) in group B. Mean age at surgery was 38.6 months [3.1-218.7]. Mean follow-up was 177.8 months [60-240]. Group A had shorter operative time than group B (P < 0.01); lower analgesic requirement (p < 0.05), shorter hospital stay (P < 0.05) and lower overall costs (p < 0.05), but higher postoperative PNPs (p < 0.01), lower success rate (p < 0.01) and higher redo-surgery percentage (p < 0.01). No differences in terms of postoperative complications, success rate and mean radiation exposure between the two groups. Endoscopy is associated with shorter operative time, shorter hospitalization and lower cost, also in case of multiple injections. Recurrence rate after surgery is lower meaning lower rate of re-hospitalization and radiation exposure for children.

DRG payment for major pancreatic surgery: analysis of resource consumption and suggestions from a tertiary hospital in China.

Aim: To investigate the cost homogeneity within the Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) "major operation of pancreas and liver, with general complications or comorbidities" (HB13), its cost-influencing factors, and to propose suggestions for better grouping efficacy. Methods: Medical and insurance settlement data of inpatients covered by the DRG payment system at the author's institution were collected from March 15, 2022 to December 31, 2023. The cost homogeneity of group HB13 was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV). Clinical factors that may have an impact on hospitalization cost for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were identified through a semi-structured interview administered to the pancreatic surgeons in author's department, their significance was analyzed using multiple linear regression, along with their impact on the cost of different service categories. A proposal to subdivide HB13 was made and evaluated by CV and t-test. Results: The CV of the HB13 group was 0.4. Robotic-assisted surgery and pancreaticoduodenectomy were two independent factors that significantly affected the total cost. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery have an average increase of 41,873 CNY in total cost, primarily derived from operation fee. Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy have an average increase of 37,487 CNY in total cost, with significant increases across all service categories. HB13 was subdivided based on whether pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed. The newly formed groups exhibited lower CVs than the original HB13. Conclusion: The cost homogeneity of HB13 was lower than that of other DRG groups in author's department. It is recommended to introduce a supplementary payment for patients requiring robotic-assisted surgery, to guarantee their access to this advanced technology. It is recommended to establish a new group with higher payment standard for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. A tiered CV criterion for the evaluation of grouping efficacy is recommended to increase intra-group homogeneity, facilitating a better allocation of health insurance funds, and the prevention of unintended negative outcomes such as service cuts and cherry-picking.

Efficacy of the da Vinci robot versus thoracoscopic surgery for patients with mediastinal tumors of different body mass index: a multicenter propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of da Vinci robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for the treatment of patients with mediastinal tumors of different body mass indices (BMI). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was used to collect 260 patients with mediastinal tumors admitted to three medical centers in China from December 2020 to March 2024. These patients underwent mediastinal tumor resection by RATS (n = 125) or VATS (n = 135). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed for the both groups, and further, the patients were divided into the N-BMI group (18.5 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 25 kg/m2) and the H-BMI group (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) based on their BMI to compare patients' surgery-related information. RESULTS: The RATS group had more advantages than the VATS group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, total postoperative drainage, postoperative drainage time, and postoperative hospital stay. As for hospitalization costs, the VATS group was more advantageous. In the H-BMI group, subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference in shorter operative time and lower incidence of postoperative complications in the RATS group. CONCLUSION: RATS has technical and short-term efficacy advantages in comparison with VATS, although it has the drawback of high costs associated with the treatment of mediastinal tumors. In the patients with mediastinal tumors of H-BMI, RATS can achieve better short-term outcomes and safety, especially in the reduction of the incidence of postoperative complications.

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method. RESULTS: Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.

Short-term outcomes of totally robotic versus robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Totally robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) is being used more and more in gastric cancer (GC) patients. The study aims to evaluate the short-term efficacy of TRDG and robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) in the treatment of GC. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients who underwent TRDG or RADG, of which 60 patients were included in the study: 30 cases of totally robotic and 30 cases of robotic-assisted. The short-term efficacy of the two groups was compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the clinicopathological data between the two groups. Compared to RADG, TRDG had less intraoperative blood loss(P = 0.019), less postoperative abdominal drainage(P = 0.031), shorter time of exhaust( P = 0.001) and liquid diet(P = 0.001), shorter length of incision(P<0.01), shorter postoperative hospital stays(P = 0.033), lower postoperative C-reactive protein(CRP)(P = 0.024) and lower postoperative Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) scores(P = 0.048). However, no significant statistical differences were found in terms of total operation time(P = 0.108), number of lymph nodes retrieved(P = 0.307), time for anastomosis(P = 0.450), proximal resection margin(P = 0.210), distal resection margin(P = 0.202), postoperative complication(P = 0.506), total hospital cost(P = 0.286) and postoperative white blood cell(WBC)(P = 0.113). CONCLUSIONS: In terms of security and technology, TRDG could serve as a better treatment method for GC.

Costs of Robotic and Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Propensity Score-matched Analysis.

PURPOSE: Robotic bariatric surgery has not shown significant advantages compared to laparoscopy, yet costs remain a major concern. The aim of our study was to assess costs of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of all patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our institution. We retrieved demographics, clinical characteristics, postoperative data, and costs using a bottom-up approach. The primary endpoint was hospital costs in the robotic and laparoscopic groups. Data was analyzed using a propensity score matching. RESULTS: Out of the total 122 patients enrolled in the study, 42 were subsequently chosen based on propensity scores, with 21 patients allocated to each group. No difference in clinical characteristics and postoperative outcomes were noted. Length of hospital stay was 2.4 ± 0.7 days vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 days (p = 0.520). In the robotic and laparoscopic groups, total costs were USD 16,275 ± 4018 vs. 12,690 ± 2834 (absolute difference USD 3585, 95%CI 1416-5753, p = 0.002), direct costs were USD 5037 ± 1282 vs. 3720 ± 1308 (absolute difference USD 1316, 95% CI 509-2214, p = 0.002), and indirect costs were USD 11,238 ± 3234 vs. 8970 ± 3021 (absolute difference USD 2,268, 95% CI 317-4220, p = 0.024). Subgroup analyses revealed a decreasing trend in the cost difference in patients undergoing primary gastric bypass and revisional surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall hospital costs were higher in patients operated on with the robotic system than with laparoscopy, yet a clinical advantage has not been demonstrated so far. Subgroup analyses showed lesser disparity in costs among patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery, where robotics are likely to be more worthwhile.

Nationwide cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted. CONCLUSION: RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

Approaches for hysterectomy and implementation of robot-assisted surgery in benign gynaecological disease: A cost analysis study in a large university hospital.

BACKGROUND: As a minimally invasive technique, robot-assisted hysterectomy (RAH) offers surgical advantages and significant reduction in morbidity compared to open surgery. Despite the increasing use of RAH in benign gynaecology, there is limited data on its cost-effectiveness, especially in a European context. Our goal is to assess the costs of the different hysterectomy approaches, to describe their clinical outcomes, and to evaluate the impact of introduction of RAH on the rates of different types of hysterectomy. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre cost-analysis was performed for patients undergoing a hysterectomy for benign indications. Abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and RAH were included. We considered the costs of operating room and hospital stay for the different hysterectomy techniques using the "Activity Centre-Care program model". We report on intra- and postoperative complications for the different approaches as well as their cost relationship. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and December 2021, 830 patients were operated; 67 underwent VH (8%), 108 LAVH (13%), 351 LH (42%), 148 RAH (18%) and 156 AH (19%). After the implementation and learning curve of a dedicated program for RAH in 2018, AH declined from 27.3% in 2014-2017, to 22.1% in 2018 and 6.9 % in 2019-2021. The reintervention rate was 3-4% for all surgical techniques. Pharmacological interventions and blood transfusions were performed after AH in 28%, and in 17-22% of the other approaches. AH had the highest hospital stay cost with an average of €2236.40. Mean cost of the hospital stay ranged from €1136.77-€1560.66 for minimally invasive techniques. The average total costs for RAH were €6528.10 compared to €4400.95 for AH. CONCLUSION: Implementation of RAH resulted in a substantial decrease of open surgery rate. However, RAH remains the most expensive technique in our cohort, mainly due to high material and depreciation costs. Therefore, RAH should not be considered for every patient, but for those who would otherwise need more invasive surgery, with higher risk of complications. Future prospective studies should focus on the societal costs and patient reported outcomes, in order to do cost-benefit analysis and further evaluate the exact value of RAH in the current healthcare setting.

Robotic surgery reduces the consumption of medical consumables: cost analysis of robotic pancreatic surgery from a tertiary hospital in China.

Robotic surgery has been increasingly adopted in various surgical fields, but the cost-effectiveness of this technology remains controversial due to its high cost and limited improvements in clinical outcomes. This study aims to explore the health economic implications of robotic pancreatic surgery, to investigate its impact on hospitalization costs and consumption of various medical resources. Data of patients who underwent pancreatic surgery at our institution were collected and divided into robotic and traditional groups. Statistical analyses of hospitalization costs, length of stay, costs across different service categories, and subgroup cost analyses based on age, BMI class, and procedure received were performed using t tests and linear regression. Although the total hospitalization cost for the robotic group was significantly higher than that for the traditional group, there was a notable reduction in the cost of medical consumables. The reduction was more prominent among elderly patients, obese patients, and those undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, which could be attributed to the technological advantages of the robotic surgery platform that largely facilitate blood control, tissue protection, and suturing. The study concluded that despite higher overall costs, robotic pancreatic surgery offers significant savings in medical consumables, particularly benefiting certain patient subgroups. The findings provide valuable insights into the economic viability of robotic surgery, supporting its adoption from a health economics perspective.

Hospital charges for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy compared to robotic sleeve gastrectomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy has become a gold standard in addressing medically refractory obesity. Robotic platforms are becoming more utilized, however, data on its cost-effectiveness compared to laparoscopy remain controversial (1-3). At NYU Langone Health, many of the bariatric surgeons adopted robotic surgery as part of their practices starting in 2021. We present a retrospective cost analysis of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) vs. robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) at New York University (NYU) Langone Health campuses. METHODS: All adult patients ages 18-65 who underwent LSG or RSG from 202 to 2023 at NYU Langone Health campuses (Manhattan, Long Island, and Brooklyn) were evaluated via electronic medical records and MBSAQIP 30-day follow-up data. Patients with prior bariatric surgery were excluded. Complication-related ICD-10/CPT codes are collected and readmission costs will be estimated from ICD codes using the lower limit of CMS transparent NYU standard charges (3). Direct charge data for surgery and length of stay cost data were also obtained. Statistical T-test and chi-squared analysis were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Direct operating cost data at NYU Health Campuses demonstrated RSG was associated with 4% higher total charges, due to higher OR charges, robotic-specific supplies, and more post-op ED visits. CONCLUSIONS: RSG was associated with higher overall hospital charges compared to LSG, though there are multiple contributing factors. More research is needed to identify cost saving measures. This study is retrospective in nature, and does not include indirect costs nor reimbursement. Direct operating costs, per contractual agreement with suppliers, are only given as percentages. Data are limited to 30-day follow-up.

Comparing the Efficacy of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has emerged as the predominant metabolic bariatric surgery. With a growing number of studies evaluating the feasibility of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG), it becomes imperative to ascertain whether the outcomes of both techniques are comparable. This study endeavors to synthesize existing evidence and juxtapose the surgical outcomes of LSG and RSG. METHODS: We collected articles comparing LSG and RSG published between 2011 and 2024. The compiled data included author names, study duration, sample size, average age, gender distribution, geographical location, preoperative body mass index (BMI), bougie diameter, duration of hospitalization, surgical duration, readmission rates, conversion rates, costs, postoperative percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), postoperative BMI, mortality rates, and complications. RESULTS: We incorporated 21 articles. Both the RSG and LSG cohorts exhibited comparable rates of readmission, conversion, mortality, and incidence of complications (p > 0.05). Moreover, the efficacy of weight loss was similar between RSG and LSG. Nonetheless, RSG was linked to longer operative duration (WMD, -27.50 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -28.82 to -26.18; p < 0.0001), prolonged hospitalization (WMD, -0.15 days; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.04; p = 0.006), and elevated expenses (WMD, -5830.9 dollars; 95% CI, -8075.98 to -3585.81; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While both RSG and LSG demonstrated positive postoperative clinical outcomes, RSG patients experienced extended hospital stays, longer operative times, and increased hospitalization costs compared to LSG patients. Using the robotic platform for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in patients with obesity did not appear to offer any clear benefits.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) is increasingly used as a surgical approach for gastric cancer. This study assessed the effectiveness of RAMIG and studied which stages of the IDEAL-framework (1 = Idea, 2A = Development, 2B = Exploration, 3 = Assessment, 4 = Long-term follow-up) were followed. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science were searched for studies on RAMIG up to January 2023. Data collection included the IDEAL-stage, demographics, number of participants, and study design. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term studies, data on intra-, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes, survival, and costs of RAMIG were collected and summarized. RESULTS: Of the 114 included studies, none reported the IDEAL-stage. After full-text reading, 18 (16%) studies were considered IDEAL-2A, 75 (66%) IDEAL-2B, 4 (4%) IDEAL-3, and 17 (15%) IDEAL-4. The IDEAL-stages were followed sequentially (2A-4), with IDEAL-2A studies still ongoing. IDEAL-3 RCTs showed lower overall complications (8.5-9.2% RAMIG versus 17.6-19.3% laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy), equal 30-day mortality (0%), and equal length of hospital stay for RAMIG (mean 5.7-8.5 days RAMIG versus 6.4-8.2 days open/laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy). Lymph node yield was similar across techniques, but RAMIG incurred significantly higher costs than laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy ($13,423-15,262 versus $10,165-10,945). IDEAL-4 studies showed similar or improved overall/disease-free survival for RAMIG. CONCLUSION: During worldwide RAMIG implementation, the IDEAL-framework was followed in sequential order. IDEAL-3 and 4 long-term studies showed that RAMIG is similar or even better to conventional surgery in terms of hospital stay, lymph node yield, and overall/disease-free survival. In addition, RAMIG showed reduced postoperative complication rates, despite higher costs.

Robotic assisted vs open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Several randomized control trials (RCTs) have been published comparing open (ORC) with robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). However, uncertainty persists regarding this issue, as evidences and recommendations on RARC are still lacking. In this systematic review and metaanalysis, we summarized evidence in this context. A literature search was conducted according to PRISMA criteria, using PubMed/Medline, Web Of Science and Embase, up to March 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected. The primary endpoint was to investigate health-related quality of life (QoL) both at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Secondary endpoints include pathological and perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications and oncological outcomes. Furthermore, we conducted a cost evaluation based on the available evidence. Eight RCTs were included, encompassing 1024 patients (515 RARC versus 509 ORC). QoL appeared similar among the two groups both after 3 and 6 months. No significant differences in overall and major complications at 30 days (p = 0.11 and p > 0.9, respectively) and 90 days (p = 0.28 and p = 0.57, respectively) were observed, as well as in oncological, pathological and perioperative outcomes, excepting from operative time, which was longer in RARC (MD 92.34 min, 95% CI 83.83-100.84, p < 0.001) and transfusion rate, which was lower in RARC (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30-0.61, p < 0.001). Both ORC and RARC are viable options for bladder cancer, having comparable complication rates and oncological outcomes. RARC provides transfusion rate advantages, however, it has longer operative time and higher costs. QoL outcomes appear similar between the two groups, both after 3 and 6 months.

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review.

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

Cost analysis of open versus robot-assisted ventral hernia repair - a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted ventral hernia repair is associated with decreased length of stay and lower complication rates compared with open repair, but acquisition and maintenance of the robotic system is costly. The aim of this was study was to compare the procedure-specific cost of robot-assisted and open ventral and incisional hernia repair including cost of procedure-related readmissions and reoperations within 90 days postoperatively. METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study of 100 patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia. Patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 with 100 patients undergoing open repairs on age, type of hernia (primary/incisional), and horizontal defect size. The primary outcome of the study was the total cost per procedure in Euros including the cost of a robotic approach, extra ports, mesh, tackers, length of stay, length of readmission, and operative reintervention. The cost of the robot itself was not included in the cost calculation. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 0.3 days for patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia repair, which was significantly shorter compared with 2.1 days for patients undergoing open repair, P < 0.005. The readmission rate was 4% for patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs and was significantly lower compared with open repairs (17%), P = 0.006. The mean total cost of all robot-assisted ventral and incisional hernia repairs was 1,094 euro compared with 1,483 euro for open repairs, P = 0.123. The total cost of a robot-assisted incisional hernia repair was significantly lower (1,134 euros) compared with open ventral hernia repair (2,169 euros), P = 0.005. CONCLUSIONS: In a Danish cohort of patients with incisional hernia, robot-assisted incisional hernia repair was more cost-effective than an open repair due to shortened length of stay, and lower rates of readmission and reintervention within 90 days.

Early Clinical and Economic Outcomes for the VELYS Robotic-Assisted Solution Compared with Manual Instrumentation for Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been developed to improve functional outcomes after TKA by increasing surgical precision of bone cuts and soft tissue balancing, thereby reducing outliers. The DePuy Synthes VELYS robotic-assisted solution (VRAS) is one of the latest entrants in the robotic TKA market. Currently, there is limited evidence investigating early patient and economic outcomes associated with the use of VRAS. The Premier Healthcare Database was analyzed to identify patients undergoing manual TKA with any implant system compared with a cohort of robotic-assisted TKAs using VRAS between September 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause and knee-related all-setting revisits within 90-day post-TKA. Secondary outcomes included number of inpatient revisits (readmission), operating room time, discharge status, and hospital costs. Baseline covariate differences between the two cohorts were balanced using fine stratification methodology and analyzed using generalized linear models. The cohorts included 866 VRAS and 128,643 manual TKAs that had 90-day follow-up data. The rates of both all-cause and knee-related all-setting follow-up visits (revisits) were significantly lower in the VRAS TKA cohort compared with the manual TKA cohort (13.86 vs. 17.19%; mean difference [MD]: -3.34 [95% confidence interval: -5.65 to -1.03] and 2.66 vs. 4.81%; MD: -2.15 [-3.23 to -1.08], respectively, p-value < 0.01) at 90-day follow-up. The incidence of knee-related inpatient readmission was also significantly lower (53%) for VRAS compared with manual TKA. There was no significant difference between total cost of care at 90-day follow-up between VRAS and manual TKA cases. On average, the operating room time was higher for VRAS compared with manual TKA (138 vs. 134 minutes). In addition, the discharge status and revision rates were similar between the cohorts. The use of VRAS for TKA is associated with lower follow-up visits and knee-related readmission rates in the first 90-day postoperatively. The total hospital cost was similar for both VRAS and manual TKA cohort while not accounting for the purchase of the robot.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center. METHODS: In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022). RESULTS: Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs. DISCUSSION: In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.