Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on modern management of frailty

LIVE: Thursday 17th October 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Frailty has a significant impact on health and wellbeing, especially in older adults. Join our experts to understand the factors that contribute to the development of frailty and find out how to manage the condition and reduce the risk of disability, dependency, and mortality.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Open Access 27-09-2024 | Scoping Review

Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities

Authors: Tzu-Jung Lai, Robert Heggie, Hanin-Farhana Kamaruzaman, Janet Bouttell, Kathleen Boyd

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is growing rapidly. However, economic evaluation of this technology is challenging. This study aims to identify and discuss the different economic evaluation methods which have been used to evaluate RAS.

Method

This scoping review systematically searched PubMed and Embase from 2015 to 2023. We included economic evaluation studies comparing RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to aid data extraction and was extended to cover additional features relevant to RAS, including learning curve, organisational impact, incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

Results

A total of 50 economic evaluations of RAS were included. Cost-utility analysis (46%) was the most commonly applied economic evaluation method, followed by cost-consequence analysis (32%). The studies focused on the specialties of urology (42%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (20%), colorectal (14%) and gynaecology (6%). Distinctive features related to the assessment of RAS were under-addressed in economic evaluations. Only 40% of the included studies considered learning curve and organisational impact and less than 12% of the included studies reflected on incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

Conclusions

This review found that some studies have incorporated challenges specific to RAS in their evaluations. However, most studies still lack key aspects of importance. In particular, studies rarely considered the ability of RAS platforms to be shared across multiple specialities. Incorporating these distinctive features offers an opportunity for economic evaluation to provide decision-makers with a more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this technology and to ensure its optimal utilisation in clinical practice.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Maynou L, Mehtsun WT, Serra-Sastre V, Papanicolas I. Patterns of adoption of robotic radical prostatectomy in the United States and England. Health Serv Res. 2021;56(Suppl 3):1441–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Maynou L, Pearson G, McGuire A, Serra-Sastre V. The diffusion of robotic surgery: examining technology use in the English NHS. Health Policy. 2022;126(4):325–36.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Siddaiah-Subramanya M, Tiang KW, Nyandowe M. A new era of minimally invasive surgery: progress and development of major technical innovations in general surgery over the last decade. Surg J (NY). 2017;3(4):e163–6.CrossRef
4.
Roh HF, Nam SH, Kim JM. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(1):e0191628.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
6.
Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, Shirley M, Vale L, Ramsay C, 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.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Song C, Cheng L, Li Y, Kreaden U, Snyder SR. Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9): e058394.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Hohwü L, Borre M, Ehlers L, Venborg PK. A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ. 2011;14(4):403–9.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Teljeur C, O’Neill M, Moran PS, Harrington P, Flattery M, Murphy L, et al. Economic evaluation of robot-assisted hysterectomy: a cost-minimisation analysis. BJOG. 2014;121(12):1546–53.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Morii Y, Osawa T, Suzuki T, Shinohara N, Harabayashi T, Ishikawa T, et al. Cost comparison between open radical cystectomy, laparoscopic radical cystectomy, and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer: a systematic review of segmental costs. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Erskine J, Abrishami P, Charter R, Cicchetti A, Culbertson R, Faria E, et al. Best practice considerations on the assessment of robotic assisted surgical systems: results from an international consensus expert panel. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023;39(1): e39.PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Tandogdu Z, Vale L, Fraser C, Ramsay C. A systematic review of economic evaluations of the use of robotic assisted laparoscopy in surgery compared with open or laparoscopic surgery. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(5):457–67.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(3):598–606.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Bai F, Li M, Han J, Qin Y, Yao L, Yan W, et al. More work is needed on cost-utility analyses of robotic-assisted surgery. J Evid Based Med. 2022;15(2):77–96.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs—same or different? Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;12(4):402–4.CrossRef
17.
Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Economic evaluation of medical devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018.
18.
Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, Drummond M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13(Suppl 2):ii54–8.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Tarricone R, Callea G, Ogorevc M, Prevolnik RV. Improving the methods for the economic evaluation of medical devices. Health Econ. 2017;26(Suppl 1):70–92.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13(3):141–6.
21.
22.
23.
Hupe M. EndNote X9. J Electron Resour Med Libr. 2019;16(3–4):117–9.
24.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, Bekker-Grob ED, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ. 2022;376:e067975.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Ohinmaa A, Koivurova S, Ohtonen P, Sintonen H, et al. Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23(5):461–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Lindenberg MA, Retèl VP, van der Poel HG, Bandstra F, Wijburg C, van Harten WH. Cost-utility analysis on robot-assisted and laparoscopic prostatectomy based on long-term functional outcomes. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):7658.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
de Oliveira RAR, Guimarães GC, Mourão TC, de Lima FR, Santana TBM, Lopes A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(6):859–68.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Faria EF, Rosim RP, de Matos NE, Tobias-Machado M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer from the brazilian public system perspective. Value Health Reg Issues. 2022;29:60–5.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Labban M, Dasgupta P, Song C, Becker R, Li Y, Kreaden US, et al. Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in the UK. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4): e225740.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Parackal A, Tarride JE, Xie F, Blackhouse G, Hoogenes J, Hylton D, et al. Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020;14(8):E350–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Michels CTJ, Wijburg CJ, Leijte E, Witjes JA, Rovers MM, Grutters JPC. A cost-effectiveness modeling study of robot-assisted (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) for bladder cancer to inform future research. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(6):1058–65.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Buse S, Hach CE, Klumpen P, Alexandrov A, Mager R, Mottrie A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for the prevention of perioperative complications. World J Urol. 2016;34(8):1131–7.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Magge DR, Zenati MS, Hamad A, Rieser C, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ, et al. Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20(12):1172–80.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Panse NS, Prasath V, Quinn PL, Chokshi RJ. Economic evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(9):6806–17.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Vasudevan V, Reusche R, Wallace H, Kaza S. Clinical outcomes and cost-benefit analysis comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(12):5490–3.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Miller HP, Hakim A, Kellish A, Wozniak M, Gaughan J, Sensenig R, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of robotic vs. laparoscopic hepatectomy: a propensity-matched retrospective cohort study of american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program database. Am Surg. 2022;88(12):2886–92.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kukreja JB, Metcalfe MJ, Qiao W, Kamat AM, Dinney CPN, Navai N. Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted radical cystectomy using a propensity-matched cohort. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(1):88–94.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Ugliono E, Rebecchi F, Vicentini C, Salzano A, Morino M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: laparoscopic vs. robot assisted. Updat Surg. 2023;75(1):189–96.CrossRef
39.
Probst KA, Ohlmann C-H, Saar M, Siemer S, Stöeckle M, Janssen M. Robot-assisted vs open adrenalectomy: evaluation of cost-effectiveness and peri-operative outcome. BJU Int. 2016;118(6):952–7.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Bansal SS, Dogra T, Smith PW, Amran M, Auluck I, Bhambra M, et al. Cost analysis of open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2018;121(3):437–44.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Vicente E, Núñez-Alfonsel J, Ielpo B, Ferri V, Caruso R, Duran H, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Int J Med Robot. 2020;16(2): e2080.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Simianu VV, Gaertner WB, Kuntz K, Kwaan MR, Lowry AC, Madoff RD, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic versus robotic minimally invasive colectomy. Ann Surg. 2020;272(2):334–41.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Simianu VV, Curran T, Gaertner WB, Sklow B, Kuntz KM, Kwaan MR, et al. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of surgical approaches to proctectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(6):1512–23.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Ferri V, Quijano Y, Nuñez J, Caruso R, Duran H, Diaz E, et al. Robotic-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(1):115–23.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Baghli A, Achit H, Audigé V, Larré S, Branchu B, Balkau B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery vs open surgery in the context of partial nephrectomy for small kidney tumors. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(4):1571–8.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Merola G, Sciuto A, Pirozzi F, Andreuccetti J, Pignata G, Corcione F, et al. Is robotic right colectomy economically sustainable? A multicentre retrospective comparative study and cost analysis. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(9):4041–7.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Basto M, Sathianathen N, te Marvelde L, Ryan S, Goad J, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int. 2016;117(6):930–9.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Souche R, Herrero A, Bourel G, Chauvat J, Pirlet I, Guillon F, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(8):3562–9.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Khoraki J, Gomez PP, Mazzini GS, Pessoa BM, Browning MG, Aquilina GR, et al. Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(8):3496–507.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Buse S, Hach CE, Klumpen P, Schmitz K, Mager R, Mottrie A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robot-assisted vs. open partial nephrectomy. Int J Med Robot. 2018;14(4):e1920.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Caruso R, Vicente E, Quijano Y, Duran H, Diaz E, Fabra I, et al. Case-matched analysis of robotic versus open surgical enucleation for pancreatic tumours: a comparative cost-effectiveness study. Int J Med Robot. 2022;18(5): e2425.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Quijano Y, Nuñez-Alfonsel J, Ielpo B, Ferri V, Caruso R, Durán H, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative cost-effectiveness study. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24(3):247–54.PubMedCrossRef
53.
De Pastena M, Esposito A, Paiella S, Surci N, Montagnini G, Marchegiani G, et al. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(3):1420–8.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Ploussard G, Grabia A, Barret E, Beauval JB, Brureau L, Créhange G, et al. Annual nationwide analysis of costs and post-operative outcomes after radical prostatectomy according to the surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, and robotic). World J Urol. 2022;40(2):419–25.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Singh A, Panse NS, Prasath V, Arjani S, Chokshi RJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic cholecystectomy in the treatment of benign gallbladder disease. Surgery. 2023;173(6):1323–8.PubMedCrossRef
56.
HQO. Robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy: a health technology assessment. Ontario Health Technol Assess Ser. 2017;17(11):1–172.
57.
McCarthy A, Samarakoon D, Gray J, McMeekin P, McCarthy S, Newton C, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic gynaecological surgery: a prospective multicentre observational cohort study and economic evaluation in England. BMJ Open. 2023;13(9): e073990.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Michels CTJ, Wijburg CJ, Hannink G, Witjes JA, Rovers MM, Grutters JPC. Robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: an economic evaluation alongside a multicentre comparative effectiveness study. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(3):739–47.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Dixon S, Hill H, Flight L, Khetrapal P, Ambler G, Williams NR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted radical cystectomy vs open radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(6): e2317255.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
Steffens D, McBride KE, Hirst N, Solomon MJ, Anderson T, Thanigasalam R, et al. Surgical outcomes and cost analysis of a multi-specialty robotic-assisted surgery caseload in the Australian public health system. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(5):2237–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Tedesco G, Faggiano FC, Leo E, Derrico P, Ritrovato M. A comparative cost analysis of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and open surgery: the necessity of investing knowledgeably. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(11):5044–51.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Caruso R, Vicente E, Núñez-Alfonsel J, Ferri V, Diaz E, Fabra I, et al. Robotic-assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(4):627–32.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Ciani O, Wilcher B, Van Giessen A, Taylor RS. Linking the regulatory and reimbursement processes for medical devices: the need for integrated assessments. Health Econ. 2017;26:13–29.PubMedCrossRef
64.
65.
Perera S, Fernando N, O’Brien J, Murphy D, Lawrentschuk N. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: learning curves and outcomes from an Australian perspective. Prostate Int. 2023;11(1):51–7.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Lawrie L, Gillies K, Davies L, Torkington J, McGrath J, Kerr R, et al. Current issues and future considerations for the wider implementation of robotic-assisted surgery: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11): e067427.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(6):511–20.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Corcos J, Pautler. Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery. CADTH Technol Overv. 2012;2(2):e2203.
69.
70.
Marcus HJ, Ramirez PT, Khan DZ, Layard Horsfall H, Hanrahan JG, Williams SC, et al. The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring. Nat Med. 2024;30(1):61–75.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities
Authors
Tzu-Jung Lai
Robert Heggie
Hanin-Farhana Kamaruzaman
Janet Bouttell
Kathleen Boyd
Publication date
27-09-2024
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00920-1