Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. METHODS: 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. RESULTS: The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. CONCLUSION: RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

Index Surgery Cost of Fluoroscopic Freehand Versus Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement in Lumbar Instrumentation: An Age, Sex, and Approach-Matched Cohort Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery costs are notoriously high, and there are already criticisms and concerns over the economic effects. There is no consensus on cost variation with robot-assisted spine fusion (rLF) compared with a manual fluoroscopic freehand (fLF) approach. This study looks to compare the early costs between the robotic method and the freehand method in lumbar spine fusion. METHODS: rLFs by one spine surgeon were age, sex, and approach-matched to fLF procedures by another spine surgeon. Variable direct costs, readmissions, and revision surgeries within 90 days were reviewed and compared. RESULTS: Thirty-nine rLFs were matched to 39 fLF procedures. No significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes. rLF had higher total encounter costs (P < 0.001) and day-of-surgery costs (P = 0.005). Increased costs were mostly because of increased supply cost (0.0183) and operating room time cost (P < 0.001). Linear regression showed a positive relationship with operating room time and cost in rLF (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: rLF is associated with a higher index surgery cost. The main factor driving increased cost is supply costs, with other variables too small in difference to make a notable financial effect. rLF will become more common, and other institutions may need to take a closer financial look at this more novel instrumentation before adoption.

A prospective comparison of costs between robotics, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in endometrial cancer among women with Class III obesity or higher.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the immediate operating room (OR), inpatient, and overall costs between three surgical modalities among women with endometrial cancer (EC) and Class III obesity or higher. METHODS: A multicentre prospective observational study examined outcomes of women, with early stage EC, treated surgically. Resource use was collected for OR costs including OR time, equipment, and inpatient costs. Median OR, inpatient, and overall costs across surgical modalities were analyzed using an Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test among patients with BMI ≥ 40. RESULTS: Out of 520 women, 103 had a BMI ≥ 40. Among women with BMI ≥ 40: median OR costs were $4197.02 for laparotomy, $5524.63 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $7225.16 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p < 0.001) and median inpatient costs were $5584.28 for laparotomy, $3042.07 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $1794.51 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the median overall costs: $10 291.50 for laparotomy, $8412.63 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $9002.48 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p = 0.185). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in overall costs between the three surgical modalities in patient with BMI ≥ 40. Given the similar costs, any form of minimally invasive surgery should be promoted in this population.

Nationwide Readmissions Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MISVHR) has been performed for almost 30 years; recently, there has been an accelerated adoption of the robotic platform leading to renewed comparisons to open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). The present study evaluates patterns and outcomes of readmissions for MISVHR and OVHR patients. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was queried for patients undergoing OVHR and MISVHR from 2016 to 2018. Demographic characteristics, complications, and 90-day readmissions were determined. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) vs laparoscopic hernia repair (LVHR). Standard statistical methods and logistic regression were used. RESULTS: Over the 3-year period, there were 25 795 MISVHR and 180 635 OVHR admissions. Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair was associated with a lower rate of 90-day readmission (11.3% vs 17.3%, P < .01), length of stay (LOS) (4.0 vs 7.9 days, P < .01), and hospital charges ($68,240 ± 75 680 vs $87,701 ± 73 165, P < .01), which remained true when elective and non-elective repairs were evaluated independently. Postoperative infection was the most common reason for readmission but was less common in the MISVHR group (8.4% vs 16.8%, P < .01). Robotic ventral hernia repair increased over the 3-year period and was associated with decreased LOS (3.7 vs 4.1 days, P < .01) and comparable readmissions (11.3% vs 11.2%, P = .74) to LVHR, but was nearly $20,000 more expensive. In logistic regression, OVHR, non-elective operation, urban-teaching hospital, increased LOS, comorbidities, and payer type were predictive of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Open ventral hernia repair was associated with increased LOS and increased readmissions compared to MISVHR. Robotic ventral hernia repair had comparable readmissions and decreased LOS to LVHR, but it was more expensive.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic). METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential opportunities and possible competitiveness of Avatera robotic system (ARS) (Avateramedical, Germany), and perform predictive cost-analysis for its implementation and dissemination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our study employed a projective quantitative research design. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was used to map ARS internal competencies towards external contexts, and potential opportunities and risks in the robotic market. The ARS purchase and procedural costs were evaluated in two different scenarios. RESULTS: In the first scenario, setting the purchase cost of the Avatera at around $1.3-1.5 million, a total $400 procedural cost reduction compared to the RAS performed with the da Vinci Xi can be calculated. In the second scenario, with a purchase cos of the ARS of $700.000-800.000 and considering a 5-year period with an annual ARS volume of 500 procedures, only an additional $300 will be attributed to the robot itself. Our projections revealed that for an effective competition the purchase cost of ARS should range between $700.000 and $800.000 during the initial phase of market entry. The marketing strategy of the ARS should be oriented towards countries without any robotic system in operational use, followed by countries where the competition intensity in the marketplace is low. CONCLUSION: The introduction of new robotic systems will greatly affect and reshape the market of robotic surgery. The ARS has all the technical capacity ensuring the performance of high-quality surgical procedures. A fast spread and implementation of the ARS could be expected should the purchase and maintenance costs be kept low.

Activity-Based Cost Analysis of Robotic Anatomic Lung Resection During Program Implementation.

BACKGROUND: While robotic-assisted lung resection has seen a significant rise in adoption, concerns remain regarding initial programmatic outcomes and potential increased costs. We present our initial outcomes and cost analysis since initiation of a robotic lung resection program. METHODS: Patients undergoing either video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmentectomy (VATS) or robotic-assisted lobectomy or segmentectomy (RALS) between August of 2014 and January of 2017 underwent retrospective review. Patients underwent 1:1 propensity matching based on preoperative characteristics. Perioperative and 30-day outcomes were compared between groups. Detailed activity-based costing analysis was performed on individual patient encounters taking into effect direct and indirect controllable costs, including robotic operative supplies. RESULTS: There were no differences in 30-day mortality between RALS (n = 74) and VATS (n = 74) groups (0% vs 1.4%; P = 1). RALS patients had a decreased median length of stay (4 days vs 7 days; P < .001) and decreased median chest tube duration (3 days vs 5 days, P < .001). Total direct costs, including direct supply costs, were not significantly different between RALS and VATS ($6621 vs $6483; P = .784). Median total operating costs and total unit support costs, which are closely correlated to length of stay, were lower in the RALS group. Overall median controllable costs were significantly different between RALS and VATS ($16,352 vs $21,154; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: A potentially cost-advantageous robotic-assisted pulmonary resection program can be initiated within the context of an existing minimally invasive thoracic surgery program while maintaining good clinical outcomes when compared with traditional VATS. Process-of-care changes associated with RALS may account for decreased costs in this setting.

The impact of operative approach on postoperative outcomes and healthcare utilization after colectomy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate national trends in adoption of different surgical approaches for colectomy and compare clinical outcomes and resource utilization between approaches. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective inpatient left or right colectomy between 2010 and 2019 from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were classified by operative approach: open, minimally invasive: either laparoscopic or robotic. Postoperative outcomes assessed within index hospitalization include operating room time, hospital length of stay, rates of conversion to open surgery, reoperation, and complications. Post-discharge readmission, hospital-based encounters, and costs were collected to 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes between operative approaches adjusted for patient baseline characteristics and clustering within hospitals. RESULTS: Among 206,967 patients, the robotic approach rates increased from 2.1%/1.6% (2010) to 32.6%/26.8% (2019) for left/right colectomy, offset by a decrease in both open and laparoscopic approaches. Median length of stay for both left and right colectomies was significantly longer in open (6 days) and laparoscopic (5 days) compared to robotic surgery (4 days; all P values <.001). Robotic surgery compared to open and laparoscopic was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate, development of ileus, overall complications, and 30-day hospital encounters. Robotic surgery further demonstrated lower mortality, reoperations, postoperative bleeding, and readmission rates for left and right colectomies than open. Robotic surgery had significantly longer operating room times and higher costs than either open or laparoscopic. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in colon surgery, with outcomes equivalent and in some domains superior to laparoscopic.

Value Analysis of Methods of Inguinal Hernia Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Value is defined as health outcomes important to patients relative to cost of achieving those outcomes: Value = Quality/Cost. For inguinal hernia repair, Level 1 evidence shows no differences in long-term functional status or recurrence rates when comparing surgical approaches. Differences in value reside within differences in cost. The aim of this study is to compare the value of different surgical approaches to inguinal hernia repair: Open (Open-IH), Laparoscopic (Lap-IH), and Robotic (R-TAPP). METHODS: Variable and fixed hospital costs were compared among consecutive Open-IH, Lap-IH, and R-TAPP repairs (100 each) performed in a university hospital. Variable costs (VC) including direct materials, labor, and variable overhead ($/min operating room [OR] time) were evaluated using Value Driven Outcomes, an internal activity-based costing methodology. Variable and fixed costs were allocated using full absorption costing to evaluate the impact of surgical approach on value. As cost data is proprietary, differences in cost were normalized to Open-IH cost. RESULTS: Compared to Open-IH, VC for Lap-IH were 1.02X higher (including a 0.81X reduction in cost for operating room [OR] time). For R-TAPP, VC were 2.11X higher (including 1.36X increased costs for OR time). With allocation of fixed cost, a Lap-IH was 1.03X more costly, whereas R-TAPP was 3.18X more costly than Open-IH. Using equivalent recurrence as the quality metric in the value equation, Lap-IH decreases value by 3% and R-TAPP by 69% compared to Open-IH. CONCLUSIONS: Use of higher cost technology to repair inguinal hernias reduces value. Incremental health benefits must be realized to justify increased costs. We expect payors and patients will incorporate value into payment decisions.

Economic evaluations comparing Tran-oral robotic surgery and radiotherapy in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trans-oral robotic surgery (TORS) and primary radiotherapy are the two modalities used to treat early T stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma(OPSCC). Prior literature including a recent randomized controlled trial have not shown the superiority of one modality over the other. When the modalities have similar outcomes, cost-effectiveness have an important role in deciding on the appropriate treatment. There are economic evaluations comparing the two modality with contradicting conclusions. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the evidence. METHODS: This is a systematic review of economic evaluations on the treatment modalities for OPSCC, namely TORS versus radiotherapy. The main outcome measures were the Cost-utility results reported as the effectiveness and costs separately and as part of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. RESULTS: Literature search identified five articles reporting cost-utility analysis, eligible for the review. A strategy is considered to be dominant when the effectiveness achieved was more at a lower cost, compared to the comparator. At the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 to 100,000 USD per Quality Adjusted Life-Year (QALY), three studies showed dominance of strategies in the base case analysis (TORS in two and Primary Chemoradiotherapy in one). Two of the articles studied node negative patients, one of them favored TORS. Three articles had node positive patients and two of them favored TORS and one favored chemoradiotherapy in the base case analysis. On sensitivity analysis, adjuvant treatment was found to be the detrimental factor affecting the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: TORS can be considered a cost-effective strategy in early T stage OPSCC, if the addition of adjuvant therapy involving radiotherapy can be avoided. Literature have shown that around 70% of the early cancers would require adjuvant treatment. This implies the importance of case selection while considering TORS as the initial treatment modality.

Post robotic investment: Cost consequences and impact on length of stay for obese women with endometrial cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to investigate whether robotic-assisted surgery is associated with lower incremental resource use among obese patients relative to non-obese patients after a Danish nationwide adoption of robotic-assisted surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer. This is a population-based cohort study based on registers and clinical data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All women who underwent surgery (robotic, laparoscopic and laparotomy) from 2008 to 2015 were included and divided according to body mass index (<30 and ≥30). Robotic-assisted surgery was gradually introduced in Denmark (2008-2013). We compared resource use post-surgery in obese vs non-obese women who underwent surgery before and after a nationwide adoption of robotic-assisted surgery. The key exposure variable was exposure to robotic-assisted surgery. Clinical and sociodemographic data were linked with national register data to determine costs and bed days 12 months before and after surgery applying difference-in-difference analyses. RESULTS: In total, 3934 women were included. The adoption of robotic-assisted surgery did not demonstrate statistically significant implications for total costs among obese women (€3,417; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€854 to €7,688, p = 0.117). Further, for obese women, a statistically significant reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization was demonstrated (-1.9 bed days; 95% CI -3.6 to -0.2, p = 0.025). However, for non-obese women, the adoption of robotic-assisted surgery was associated with statistically significant total costs increments of €9,333 (95% CI €3,729-€1,4936, p = 0.001) and no reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization was observed (+0.9 bed days; 95% CI -0.6 to 2.3, p = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: The national investment in robotic-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer seems to have more modest cost implications post-surgery for obese women. This may be partly driven by a significant reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization among obese women, as well as reductions in subsequent hospitalizations.

State-Level Examination of Clinical Outcomes and Costs for Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach to Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Published studies evaluating the effect of robotic assistance on clinical outcomes and costs of care in diaphragmatic hernia repair (DHR) have been limited. STUDY DESIGN: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for Florida were queried to identify patients undergoing transabdominal DHR between 2011 and 2018 and associated inpatient and outpatient encounters within 12 months after the index operation. Patients undergoing robotic DHR were 1:1:1 propensity score-matched for age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidity score, case priority, payer, and facility volume with patients undergoing open and laparoscopic DHR. RESULTS: There were 5,962 patients (67.3%) who underwent laparoscopic DHR, 1,520 (17.2%) who underwent open DHR, and 1,376 (15.5%) who underwent robotic DHR. On comparison of matched cohorts, median index length of stay (3 days; interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 5 days vs 2 days; IQR 1 to 4 days; p < 0.001) and index hospitalization costs ($17,236; IQR $13,231 to $22,183 vs $12,087; IQR $8,881 to $17,439; p < 0.001) for robotic DHR were greater than for laparoscopic DHR. Median length of stay for open DHR (6 days; IQR 4 to 10 days) was longer than that for both laparoscopic and robotic DHR. Median index hospitalization costs for open DHR ($16,470; IQR $11,152 to $23,768) were greater than those for laparoscopic DHR, but less than those for robotic DHR. There were no significant differences between cohorts in the overall rate of post-index care. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic DHR is the most cost-effective approach to DHR. Robotic assistance provides clinical outcomes comparable with laparoscopic DHR, but is associated with increased index cost.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS: Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included. RESULTS: A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms.

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Costs and Use Associated With Open vs Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Importance: With the current patterns of adoption and use of robotic surgery and improvement in the overall survival of patients with prostate cancer, it is important to evaluate the immediate and long-term cost implications of treatments for patients with prostate cancer. Objective: To compare health care costs and use 1 year after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) vs robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used a US commercial claims database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. A total of 11 457 men aged 18 to 64 years who underwent inpatient radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and were continuously enrolled with medical and prescription drug coverage from 180 days before to 365 days after inpatient prostatectomy were identified. An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed to examine the differences in costs and use of health care services by surgical modality. Data analysis was conducted from September 2019 to July 2020. Exposures: Type of surgical procedure: ORP vs RARP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes within 1 year after the inpatient prostatectomy were investigated: (1) total health care costs, including reimbursement paid by insurers and out of pocket by patients; (2) health care use, including inpatient readmission, emergency department, hospital outpatient, and office visits; and (3) estimated days missed from work due to health care use. Results: Of the 11 457 patients who underwent inpatient prostatectomy, 1604 (14.0%) had ORP and 9853 (86.0%) had RARP and most patients (8467 [73.9%]) were aged 55 to 64 years. Compared with patients who underwent ORP, those who received RARP had a higher cost at the index hospitalization (mean difference, $2367; 95% CI, $1821-$2914; P < .001), but similar total cumulative costs were observed within 180 days (mean difference, $397; 95% CI, -$582 to $1375; P = .43) and 1 year after discharge (-$383; 95% CI, -$1802 to $1037; P = .60). One-year postdischarge health care use was significantly lower in the RARP compared with ORP group for mean numbers of emergency department visits (-0.09 visits; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.07 visits; P < .001) and hospital outpatient visits (-1.5 visits; -1.63 to -1.36 visits; P < .001). The reduction in use of health care services among patients who underwent RARP translated into additional savings of $2929 (95% CI, $1600-$4257; P < .001) and approximately 1.69 fewer days (95% CI, 1.49-1.89 days; P < .001) missed from work for health care visits. Conclusions and Relevance: Total cumulative cost in this study was similar between ORP and RARP 1 year post discharge; this finding suggests that lower postdischarge health care use after RARP may offset the higher costs during the index hospitalization.

Can robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty be a cost-effective procedure? A Markov decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a frequently and increasingly performed surgery in the treatment of disabling knee osteoarthritis. The rising number of procedures and related revisions pose an increasing economic burden on health care systems. In an attempt to lower the revision rate due to component malalignment and soft tissue imbalance in TKA, robotic assistance (RA) has been introduced in the operating theatre. The primary objective of this study is to provide the results of a theoretical, preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of RA TKA. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was designed to model the health status of sixty-seven-year-old patients in need of TKA due to primary osteoarthritis over a twenty-year period following their knee joint replacement. Transitional probabilities and independent variables were extracted from existing literature. RESULTS: The value attributed to the utility both for primary and revision surgery has the biggest impact on the ICER, followed by the rate of successful primary surgery and the cost of RA-technology. Only 2.18% of the samples yielded from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis proved to be cost-effective (threshold set at $50000/QALY). A calculated surgical volume of at least 253 cases per robot per year is needed to prove cost-effective taking the predetermined parameter values into account. CONCLUSION: Based upon transitional probabilities and independent variables derived from existing studies, RA TKA may be cost-effective at a surgical volume of 253 cases per robot per year when compared to conventional TKA.

Robotic total knee arthroplasty: A missed opportunity for cost savings in Bundled Payment for Care Improvement initiatives?

BACKGROUND: The use of robotic total knee arthroplasty has become increasingly prevalent. Proponents of robotic total knee arthroplasty tout its potential to not only improve outcomes, but also to reduce costs compared with traditional total knee arthroplasty. Despite its potential to deliver on the value proposition, whether robotic total knee arthroplasty has led to improved outcomes and cost savings within Medicare's Bundled Payment for Care Improvement initiative remains unexplored. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent total knee arthroplasty designated under Medicare severity diagnosis related group 469 or 470 in the year 2017 were identified using the 100% Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Hospitals participating in the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement were identified using the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement analytic file. We calculated risk-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 90-days postdischarge. Outcomes, utilization, and spending were assessed relative to variation between robotic and traditional total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Overall, 198,371 patients underwent total knee arthroplasty (traditional total knee arthroplasty: n= 194,020, 97.8% versus robotic total knee arthroplasty: n = 4,351, 2.2%). Among the 3,272 hospitals that performed total knee arthroplasty, only 300 (9.3%) performed robotic total knee arthroplasty. Among the 183 participating in the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement, only 40 (19%) hospitals performed robotic total knee arthroplasty. Risk-adjusted 90-day episode spending was $14,263 (95% confidence interval $14,231-$14,294) among patients who underwent traditional total knee arthroplasty versus $13,676 (95% confidence interval $13,467-$13,885) among patients who had robotic total knee arthroplasty. Patients who underwent robotic total knee arthroplasty had a shorter length of stay (traditional total knee arthroplasty: 2.3 days, 95% confidence interval: 2.3-2.3 versus robotic total knee arthroplasty: 1.9 days, 95% confidence interval: 1.9-2.0), as well as a lower incidence of complications (traditional total knee arthroplasty: 3.3%, 95% confidence interval: 3.2-3.3 versus robotic total knee arthroplasty: 2.7%, 95% confidence interval: 2.3-3.1). Of note, patients who underwent robotic total knee arthroplasty were less often discharged to a postacute care facility than patients who underwent traditional total knee arthroplasty (traditional total knee arthroplasty: 32.4%, 95% confidence interval: 32.3-32.5 versus robotic total knee arthroplasty: 16.8%, 95% confidence interval 16.1-17.6). Both Bundled Payment for Care Improvement and non-Bundled Payment for Care Improvement hospitals with greater than 50% robotic total knee arthroplasty utilization had lower spending per episode of care versus spending at hospitals with less than 50% robotic total knee arthroplasty utilization. CONCLUSION: Overall 90-day episode spending for robotic total knee arthroplasty was lower than traditional total knee arthroplasty (Δ $-587, 95% confidence interval: $-798 to $-375). The decrease in spending was attributable to shorter length of stay, fewer complications, as well as lower utilization of postacute care facility. The cost savings associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty was only realized when robotic total knee arthroplasty volume surpassed 50% of all total knee arthroplasty volume. Hospitals participating in the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement may experience cost-saving with increased utilization of robotic total knee arthroplasty.

Economic assessment of starting robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a single-centre retrospective comparative study: the EASTER study.

BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the USA, despite a lack of proven clinical advantage and higher material cost. No studies have been published regarding the cost and outcome of robotic inguinal hernia surgery in a European Union setting. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was performed on the early outcome and costs related to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, with either conventional or robot-assisted surgery. RESULTS: The study analysed 676 patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (272 conventional and 404 robotic repairs). Conventional laparoscopic and robotic repair groups were comparable in terms of duration of surgery (57.6 versus 56.2 min respectively; P = 0.224), intraoperative complication rate (1.1 versus 1.2 per cent; P = 0.990), in-hospital complication rate (4.4 versus 4.5 per cent; P = 0.230) and readmission rate (3.3 versus 1.2 per cent; P = 0.095). There was a significant difference in hospital stay in favour of the robotic approach (P = 0.014), with more patients treated on an outpatient basis in the robotic group (59.2 per cent versus 70.0 per cent for conventional repair). At 4-week follow-up, equal numbers of seromas or haematomas were recorded in the conventional laparoscopic and robotic groups (13.3 versus 15.7 per cent respectively; P = 0.431), but significantly more umbilical wound infections were seen in the conventional group (3.0 per cent versus 0 per cent in the robotic group; P = 0.001). Robotic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive overall, with a mean cost of €2612 versus €1963 for the conventional laparoscopic approach (mean difference €649; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive than conventional laparoscopy. More patients were treated as outpatients in the robotic group. Postoperative complications were infrequent and mild.