Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 5/2015

01-10-2015 | Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of the Use of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopy in Surgery Compared with Open or Laparoscopic Surgery

Authors: Zafer Tandogdu, Luke Vale, Cynthia Fraser, Craig Ramsay

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 5/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Robot assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy to assist in surgical procedures, has high capital and operating costs. Systematically assembled evidence demonstrating its clinical and cost effectiveness would be helpful for its adoption by decision makers.

Objective

To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery compared with relevant alternatives. Methods and results of identified studies were assessed to identify the deficiencies in evidence and areas for further research.

Methods

Studies reporting both costs and outcomes for comparisons of RAL with laparoscopy and/or open surgery were systematically identified. Searches were conducted in February 2015 on MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED. Quality of the included studies was assessed against a standard checklist for economic analyses. Length of hospital stay and operating time (determinants of cost), cost of intervention, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were extracted. To aid comparison, costs were converted into a common currency and price year (2014 US dollars).

Results

Forty-seven eligible studies were identified (full economic evaluation n = 6 and cost analysis n = 41). Economic models were used in 11 (23 %) studies. Only three studies used a model considered representative of the disease and clinical pathway with a time-horizon allowing capture of relevant differences in outcomes across strategies. The cost of RAL varied substantially between uses, ranging from US$7011 for hysterectomy to over US$30,000 for radical cystectomy. The majority of estimates were between US$15,000 and US$25,000 per person. In part this difference is explained by the difference between studies in which costs were included. It was also identified to have higher costs than the alternatives it was compared against. Incremental cost per QALY for RAL radical prostatectomy was US$28,801–$31,763 over a 10-year period assuming 200 cases per annum.

Conclusion

The clinical evidence available for RAL overall and used within included studies is limited. RAL surgery costs were consistently higher than open and laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, in adopting the robotic technology decision makers need to take into account the cost effectiveness within their own systems. Economic models generated and published for radical prostatectomy and hysterectomy may be adapted to other health systems if the care pathway is similar to provide locally relevant data.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Smith JA Jr, Herrell SD. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: do minimally invasive approaches offer significant advantages? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(32):8170–5.CrossRefPubMed Smith JA Jr, Herrell SD. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: do minimally invasive approaches offer significant advantages? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(32):8170–5.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Campanelli G, et al. Inguinal hernia: state of the art. Int J Surg. 2008;6(Supplement 1(0)):S26–S28. Campanelli G, et al. Inguinal hernia: state of the art. Int J Surg. 2008;6(Supplement 1(0)):S26–S28.
3.
go back to reference Vale L, Ludbrook A, Grant A. Assessing the costs and consequences of laparoscopic vs. open methods of groin hernia repair: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(6):844–9.CrossRefPubMed Vale L, Ludbrook A, Grant A. Assessing the costs and consequences of laparoscopic vs. open methods of groin hernia repair: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(6):844–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Satava RM. EMerging technologies for surgery in the 21st century. Arch Surg. 1999;134(11):1197–202.CrossRefPubMed Satava RM. EMerging technologies for surgery in the 21st century. Arch Surg. 1999;134(11):1197–202.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Yohannes P, et al. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology. 2002;60(1):39–45 (discussion 45). Yohannes P, et al. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology. 2002;60(1):39–45 (discussion 45).
8.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313;275–283. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313;275–283.
9.
go back to reference Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:598–606.CrossRefPubMed Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:598–606.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Drummond M, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18.CrossRefPubMed Drummond M, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Close A, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol. 2013;64(3):361–9.CrossRefPubMed Close A, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol. 2013;64(3):361–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Hohwu L, et al. A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ. 2011;14(4):403–9.CrossRefPubMed Hohwu L, et al. A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ. 2011;14(4):403–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference O’Malley SP, Jordan E. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(2):286–91.PubMed O’Malley SP, Jordan E. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(2):286–91.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Ho C, Tsakonas E., Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Corcos J, Pautler S. Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and economic analyses. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2011. Technology report no. 137. Ho C, Tsakonas E., Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Corcos J, Pautler S. Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and economic analyses. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2011. Technology report no. 137.
16.
go back to reference Teljeur C, et al. Economic evaluation of robot-assisted hysterectomy: a cost-minimisation analysis. Bjog. 2014;121(12):1546–53.CrossRefPubMed Teljeur C, et al. Economic evaluation of robot-assisted hysterectomy: a cost-minimisation analysis. Bjog. 2014;121(12):1546–53.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Eldefrawy A, et al. Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(5):576–80.CrossRefPubMed Eldefrawy A, et al. Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(5):576–80.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Shaligram A, et al. How does the robot affect outcomes? A retrospective review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy for achalasia. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(4):1047–50.CrossRefPubMed Shaligram A, et al. How does the robot affect outcomes? A retrospective review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy for achalasia. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(4):1047–50.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Barnett JC, et al. Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(3):685–93.CrossRefPubMed Barnett JC, et al. Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(3):685–93.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Scales CD Jr, et al. Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;174(6):2323–9.CrossRefPubMed Scales CD Jr, et al. Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;174(6):2323–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Yu HY, et al. Comparative analysis of outcomes and costs following open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1239–44.CrossRefPubMed Yu HY, et al. Comparative analysis of outcomes and costs following open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1239–44.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Wright JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):11–7.CrossRefPubMed Wright JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):11–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
go back to reference Tomaszewski JJ, et al. Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2012;80(1):126–9.CrossRefPubMed Tomaszewski JJ, et al. Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2012;80(1):126–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Poston RS, et al. Comparison of economic and patient outcomes with minimally invasive versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting techniques. Ann Surg. 2008;248(4):638–46.PubMedCentralPubMed Poston RS, et al. Comparison of economic and patient outcomes with minimally invasive versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting techniques. Ann Surg. 2008;248(4):638–46.PubMedCentralPubMed
26.
go back to reference Bolenz C, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):453–8.CrossRefPubMed Bolenz C, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):453–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Tyler JA, et al. Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(4):458–66.CrossRefPubMed Tyler JA, et al. Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(4):458–66.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Pasic RP, et al. Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(6):730–8.CrossRefPubMed Pasic RP, et al. Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(6):730–8.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Wright JD, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–98.CrossRefPubMed Wright JD, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–98.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Lee R, et al. The economics of robotic cystectomy: cost comparison of open versus robotic cystectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1886–92.CrossRefPubMed Lee R, et al. The economics of robotic cystectomy: cost comparison of open versus robotic cystectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1886–92.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1431–5.CrossRefPubMed Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1431–5.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Yu HY, et al. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1392–8.CrossRefPubMed Yu HY, et al. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1392–8.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Hyams ES, et al. Impact of robotic technique and surgical volume on the cost of radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(3):298–303.CrossRefPubMed Hyams ES, et al. Impact of robotic technique and surgical volume on the cost of radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(3):298–303.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Mir SA, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):447–53.CrossRefPubMed Mir SA, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):447–53.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1044–8.CrossRefPubMed Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1044–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Landeen LB, et al. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med. 2011;64(6):197–9 (201, 203 passim). Landeen LB, et al. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med. 2011;64(6):197–9 (201, 203 passim).
37.
go back to reference Castle SM, et al. Cost comparison of nephron-sparing treatments for cT1a renal masses. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1327–32.CrossRefPubMed Castle SM, et al. Cost comparison of nephron-sparing treatments for cT1a renal masses. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1327–32.CrossRefPubMed
38.
40.
go back to reference Dayaratna S, et al. Hospital costs of total vaginal hysterectomy compared with other minimally invasive hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):120.e1–6. Dayaratna S, et al. Hospital costs of total vaginal hysterectomy compared with other minimally invasive hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):120.e1–6.
41.
go back to reference Deen SA, et al. Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(3):1000–7.CrossRefPubMed Deen SA, et al. Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(3):1000–7.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Juo YY, et al. Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches? First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(2):177–84.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Juo YY, et al. Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches? First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(2):177–84.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Keller DS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):212–21.CrossRefPubMed Keller DS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):212–21.CrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Leitao MM Jr, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotically assisted laparoscopy for newly diagnosed uterine cancers. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1031–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Leitao MM Jr, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotically assisted laparoscopy for newly diagnosed uterine cancers. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1031–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Leow JJ, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):569–76.CrossRefPubMed Leow JJ, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):569–76.CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Owen B, et al. How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(5):1686–90.CrossRefPubMed Owen B, et al. How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(5):1686–90.CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Swanson SJ, et al. Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(3):929–37.CrossRefPubMed Swanson SJ, et al. Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(3):929–37.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Varda BK, et al. National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2014;191(4):1090–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Varda BK, et al. National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2014;191(4):1090–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Mano R, et al. Cost comparison of open and robotic partial nephrectomy using a short postoperative pathway. Urology. 2015;85(3):596–604.CrossRefPubMed Mano R, et al. Cost comparison of open and robotic partial nephrectomy using a short postoperative pathway. Urology. 2015;85(3):596–604.CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Hagen ME, et al. Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2012;22(1):52–61.CrossRefPubMed Hagen ME, et al. Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2012;22(1):52–61.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference Breitenstein S, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg. 2008;247(6):987–93.CrossRefPubMed Breitenstein S, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg. 2008;247(6):987–93.CrossRefPubMed
53.
go back to reference Secretariat MA. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]. 2010;10(27):118. Secretariat MA. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]. 2010;10(27):118.
54.
go back to reference Hall RM, Linklater N, Coughlin G. Robotic and open radical prostatectomy in the public health sector: cost comparison. ANZ J Surg. 2014;84(6):477–80.CrossRefPubMed Hall RM, Linklater N, Coughlin G. Robotic and open radical prostatectomy in the public health sector: cost comparison. ANZ J Surg. 2014;84(6):477–80.CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Barbaro S, Paudice A, Scipioni S, Martin B, Charrier L, Bert F, Gianino MM. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a mini-health technology assessment in a teaching hospital. HealthMed. 2012;6(3):7. Barbaro S, Paudice A, Scipioni S, Martin B, Charrier L, Bert F, Gianino MM. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a mini-health technology assessment in a teaching hospital. HealthMed. 2012;6(3):7.
56.
go back to reference Coronado PJ, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(2):289–94.CrossRefPubMed Coronado PJ, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(2):289–94.CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Reynisson P, Persson J. Hospital costs for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130(1):95–9.CrossRefPubMed Reynisson P, Persson J. Hospital costs for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130(1):95–9.CrossRefPubMed
58.
go back to reference Leow JJ, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):569–76.CrossRefPubMed Leow JJ, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):569–76.CrossRefPubMed
59.
go back to reference Jaime Caro J, et al. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–82.CrossRefPubMed Jaime Caro J, et al. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–82.CrossRefPubMed
60.
go back to reference Roberts M, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Maki. 2012;32(5):678–89.CrossRef Roberts M, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Maki. 2012;32(5):678–89.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference Ramsay C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(41):1–313.CrossRefPubMed Ramsay C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(41):1–313.CrossRefPubMed
62.
go back to reference Bruins HM, et al. The impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1065–77.CrossRef Bruins HM, et al. The impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1065–77.CrossRef
63.
go back to reference Ljungberg B, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):398–406.CrossRefPubMed Ljungberg B, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):398–406.CrossRefPubMed
64.
go back to reference Welte R, et al. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(13):857–76.CrossRefPubMed Welte R, et al. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(13):857–76.CrossRefPubMed
65.
go back to reference Coyle D, Lee KM, Cooper NJ. Use of evidence in decision models, in evidence-based decisions and economics. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 106–13. Coyle D, Lee KM, Cooper NJ. Use of evidence in decision models, in evidence-based decisions and economics. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 106–13.
Metadata
Title
A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of the Use of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopy in Surgery Compared with Open or Laparoscopic Surgery
Authors
Zafer Tandogdu
Luke Vale
Cynthia Fraser
Craig Ramsay
Publication date
01-10-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0185-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 5/2015 Go to the issue