Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment Pathways for Prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment pathways for apical prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed a stochastic Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaginal apical suspension, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, and robotic sacrocolpopexy. We modeled over 5 and 10 years, with 9 pathways accounting for up to 2 separate surgical repairs, recurrence of symptomatic apical prolapse, reoperation, and complications, including mesh excision. We calculated costs from the health care system's perspective. RESULTS: Over 5 years, compared with expectant management, all surgical treatment pathways cost less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of US $50,000 per quality adjusted life-years. However, among surgical treatments, all but 2 pathways were dominated. Of the remaining 2, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy followed by vaginal repair for apical recurrence was not cost-effective compared with the vaginal-only approach (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], >$500,000). Over 10 years, all but the same 2 pathways were dominated. However, starting with the laparoscopic approach in this case was more cost-effective with an ICER of US $6,176. If the laparoscopic approach was not available, starting with the robotic approach similarly became more cost-effective at 10 years (ICER, US $35,479). CONCLUSIONS: All minimally invasive surgical approaches for apical prolapse repair are cost-effective when compared with expectant management. Among surgical treatments, the vaginal-only approach is the only cost-effective option over 5 years. However, over a longer period, starting with a laparoscopic (or robotic) approach becomes cost-effective. These results help inform discussions regarding the surgical approach for prolapse.

Robotic-assisted repair of complex ventral hernia: can it pay off?

Pressure on health care providers is growing due to capping of remuneration for medical services in most Western European countries. We wanted to investigate, if robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair is reasonable from an economic point of view in our setting. Patients undergoing open or robotic-assisted repair for complex abdominal wall hernia using a Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR) between September 2017 and January 2019 were included. Procedure-related costs were calculated exact to the minute and cost unit accounting for the postoperative in-patient stay was done. Abdominal wall reconstruction using the TAR-technique was done in a total of 26 (10 female) patients via an open (n = 10) or robotic-assisted (n = 16) approach. No significant difference was seen in regard to age, BMI and ASA scores between subgroups. Time for operation was longer (253.5 vs 211.5 min; p = 0.0322), while postoperative hospital stay was shorter for patients operated with a robotic-assisted approach (4.5 vs 12.5 days; p < 0.005). Procedure-related costs were 2.7-fold higher when a robotic-assisted reconstruction was done (EUR 5397 vs. 1989), while total costs for in-patient stay were about 60% lower (EUR 2715 vs 6663). Currently, revenues by national insurance account for a total of EUR 9577 leading to a profit of EUR 1465 and 925 for the robotic-assisted and open myofascial release, respectively. In addition, 30-day re-admission rate was in favor of the robotic-assisted approach as well (6.3% vs 20%). From an economic point of view, robotic-assisted TAR for complex ventral hernia repair is a viable option in our setting. Higher procedure-related costs are offset by a significant shorter hospital stay. The economic advantage goes along with improvement in outcome of patients.

Is robotic hepatectomy cost-effective? In view of patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Robotic hepatectomy has been accepted as an alternative for patients needing surgery. However, few reports addressed the patient-reported outcomes and long-term quality of life (QoL) of patients having undergone robotic liver surgery. METHODS: This study presented the QoL and cost-effectiveness associated with robotic and open hepatectomy by performing a comparative survey using two standardized questionnaires (Short Form-36 and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index). RESULTS: One hundred patients completed the study. The robotic group tended to experienced longer operation time but shorter length of hospital stay compared to open group. Moreover, the robotic group had faster return to daily activities, less need of patient-controlled anesthesia, and less wound-related complaints in long-term follow-up. The robotic group incurred higher peri-operative expenses; however, the cost of inpatient care was lower. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that robotic hepatectomy provided good post-operative QoL and recovery of daily activity. However, efforts for lowering the financial burden of medical care by reducing the cost of robotic surgery is necessary for further application.

Cost-Benefit Performance Simulation of Robot-Assisted Thoracic Surgery As Required for Financial Viability under the 2016 Revised Reimbursement Paradigm of the Japanese National Health Insurance System.

PURPOSE: To discuss the cost-benefit performance (CBP) and establish a medical fee system for robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) under the Japanese National Health Insurance System (JNHIS), which is a system not yet firmly established. METHODS: All management steps for RATS are identical, such as preoperative and postoperative management. This study examines the CBP based on medical fees of RATS under the JNHIS introduced in 2016. RESULTS: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) now receive insurance reimbursement under the category of use of support devices for endoscopic surgery ($5420 and $3485, respectively). If the same standard amount were to be applied to RATS, institutions would need to perform at least 150 or 300 procedures thoracic operation per year to show a positive CBP ($317 per procedure as same of RALP and $130 per procedure as same of RAPN, respectively). CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery in some areas receives insurance reimbursement for its "supportive" use for endoscopic surgery as for RALP and RAPN. However, at present, it is necessary to perform da Vinci Surgical System Si (dVSi) surgery at least 150-300 times in a year in a given institution to prevent a deficit in income.

Robotic Gastric Bypass Surgery in the Swiss Health Care System: Analysis of Hospital Costs and Reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Robotic technology shows some promising early outcomes indicating potentially improved outcomes particularly for challenging bariatric procedures. Still, health care providers face significant clinical and economic challenges when introducing innovations. METHODS: Prospectively derived administrative cost data of patients who were coded with a primary diagnosis of obesity (ICD-10 code E.66.X), a procedure of gastric bypass surgery (CHOP code 44.3), and a robotic identifier (CHOP codes 00.90.50 or 00.39) during the years 2012 to 2015 was analyzed and compared to the triggered reimbursement for this patient cohort. RESULTS: A total of 348 patients were identified. The mean number of diagnoses was 2.7 and the mean length of stay was 5.9 days. The overall mean cost per patients was Swiss Francs (CHF) from 2012 to 2014 that was 21,527, with a mean reimbursement of CHF 24,917. Cost of the surgery in 2015 was comparable to the previous years with CHF 22,550.0 (p = 0.6618), but reimbursement decreased significantly to CHF 20,499.0 (0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The average cost for robotic gastric bypass surgery fell well below the average reimbursement within the Swiss DRG system between 2012 and 2014, and this robotic procedure was a DRG winner for that period. However, the Swiss DRG system has matured over the years with a significant decrease resulting in a deficit for robotic gastric bypass surgery in 2015. This stipulates a discussion as to how health care providers should continue offering robotic gastric bypass surgery, particularly in the light of developing clinical evidence.

A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The economic value of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in the United States is still not well understood because of limited view analyses. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the costs and benefits of RALP versus retropubic radical prostatectomy from an expanded view, including hospital, payer, and societal perspectives. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost comparison using clinical outcomes obtained from a systematic review of the published literature. Equipment costs were obtained from the manufacturer of the robotic system; other economic model parameters were obtained from government agencies, online resources, commercially available databases, an advisory expert panel, and the literature. Clinical point estimates and care pathways based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were used to model costs out to 3 years. Hospital costs and costs incurred for the patients' postdischarge complications, adjuvant and salvage radiation treatment, incontinence and potency treatment, and lost wages during recovery were considered. Robotic system costs were modeled in two ways: as hospital overhead (hospital overhead calculation: RALP-H) and as a function of robotic case volume (robotic amortization calculation: RALP-R). All costs were adjusted to year 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: Because of more favorable clinical outcomes over 3 years, RALP provided hospital ($1094 savings with RALP-H, $341 deficit with RALP-R), payer ($1451), and societal ($1202) economic benefits relative to retropubic radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 38% to 99% probability that RALP provides cost savings (depending on the perspective). Higher surgical consumable costs are offset by a decreased hospital stay, lower complication rate, and faster return to work.