Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2017

Open Access 01-02-2017

Comparative health technology assessment of robotic-assisted, direct manual laparoscopic and open surgery: a prospective study

Authors: Giuseppe Turchetti, Francesca Pierotti, Ilaria Palla, Stefania Manetti, Cinzia Freschi, Vincenzo Ferrari, Alfred Cuschieri

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite many publications reporting on the increased hospital cost of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) compared to direct manual laparoscopic surgery (DMLS) and open surgery (OS), the reported health economic studies lack details on clinical outcome, precluding valid health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods

The present prospective study reports total cost analysis on 699 patients undergoing general surgical, gynecological and thoracic operations between 2011 and 2014 in the Italian Public Health Service, during which period eight major teaching hospitals treated the patients. The study compared total healthcare costs of RAS, DMLS and OS based on prospectively collected data on patient outcome in addition to healthcare costs incurred by the three approaches.

Results

The cost of RAS operations was significantly higher than that of OS and DMLS for both gynecological and thoracic operations (p < 0.001). The study showed no significant difference in total costs between OS and DMLS. Total costs of general surgery RAS were significantly higher than those of OS (p < 0.001), but not against DMLS general surgery. Indirect costs were significantly lower in RAS compared to both DMLS general surgery and OS gynecological surgery due to the shorter length of hospital stay of RAS approach (p < 0.001). Additionally, in all specialties compared to OS, patients treated by RAS experienced a quicker recovery and significantly less pain during the hospitalization and after discharge.

Conclusions

The present HTA while confirming higher total healthcare costs for RAS operations identified significant clinical benefits which may justify the increased expenditure incurred by this approach.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Boharay M, Patel P, Kilic C, Kilic G (2014) Outpatient robotic hysterectomy: clinical outcomes and financial analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 10:244–250CrossRef Boharay M, Patel P, Kilic C, Kilic G (2014) Outpatient robotic hysterectomy: clinical outcomes and financial analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 10:244–250CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine (1985) Assessing medical technologies. National Academy Press, Washington Institute of Medicine (1985) Assessing medical technologies. National Academy Press, Washington
4.
go back to reference Banta HD, Luce BR (1993) Health care technology and its assessment: an international perspective. Oxford University Press, New York Banta HD, Luce BR (1993) Health care technology and its assessment: an international perspective. Oxford University Press, New York
5.
go back to reference Goodman CS (2004) Introduction to health technology assessment. The Lewin Group, Virginia Goodman CS (2004) Introduction to health technology assessment. The Lewin Group, Virginia
6.
go back to reference Turchetti G, Spadoni E, Geisler E (2010) Health technology assessment: evaluation of biomedical innovative technologies. IEEE Eng Med Biol 29(3):70–76CrossRef Turchetti G, Spadoni E, Geisler E (2010) Health technology assessment: evaluation of biomedical innovative technologies. IEEE Eng Med Biol 29(3):70–76CrossRef
7.
go back to reference AIFA (2007) List of eligibility class A and H AIFA (2007) List of eligibility class A and H
8.
go back to reference Lombardia R (2013) Nomenclatore tariffario 2014 in vigore da modifiche dettate da DGR n. 1185 del 20 dicembre Lombardia R (2013) Nomenclatore tariffario 2014 in vigore da modifiche dettate da DGR n. 1185 del 20 dicembre
9.
go back to reference Piemonte R (2013) Assessorato Tutela della Salute e Sanità, Politiche Sociali e Politiche per la Famiglia, Settore Assistenza Specialistica e Ambulatoriale, DGR n.11-6036 2 luglio Piemonte R (2013) Assessorato Tutela della Salute e Sanità, Politiche Sociali e Politiche per la Famiglia, Settore Assistenza Specialistica e Ambulatoriale, DGR n.11-6036 2 luglio
10.
go back to reference Toscana R, Nomenclatore tariffario regionale delle prestazioni specialistiche ambulatoriali deliberazione di Giunta Regionale n.229 del 3.3.97 e successive modifiche e integrazioni Toscana R, Nomenclatore tariffario regionale delle prestazioni specialistiche ambulatoriali deliberazione di Giunta Regionale n.229 del 3.3.97 e successive modifiche e integrazioni
11.
go back to reference Lazio R, Prestazioni di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale - Nomenclatore tariffario attualmente in vigore secondo la DGR 1059 del 25 marzo 1998 e successive integrazioni e modifiche Lazio R, Prestazioni di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale - Nomenclatore tariffario attualmente in vigore secondo la DGR 1059 del 25 marzo 1998 e successive integrazioni e modifiche
12.
go back to reference New minimum wage for domestic workers and caregivers year 2013 New minimum wage for domestic workers and caregivers year 2013
13.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of Health Care Programs. Oxford University Press, New York Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of Health Care Programs. Oxford University Press, New York
14.
go back to reference Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen JZ, Jin JB, Deng XX, Chen H, Shen BY, Peng CH, Li HW (2015) Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc 29(12):3507–3518CrossRefPubMed Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen JZ, Jin JB, Deng XX, Chen H, Shen BY, Peng CH, Li HW (2015) Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc 29(12):3507–3518CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, Malleo G, Marchegiani G, Daskalaki D, Esposito A, Cingarlini S, Salvia R, Bassi C (2015) A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 29(11):3163–3170CrossRefPubMed Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, Malleo G, Marchegiani G, Daskalaki D, Esposito A, Cingarlini S, Salvia R, Bassi C (2015) A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 29(11):3163–3170CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Xiong B, Ma L, Huang W, Zhao Q, Cheng Y, Liu J (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies. J Gastrointest Surg 19(3):516–526CrossRefPubMed Xiong B, Ma L, Huang W, Zhao Q, Cheng Y, Liu J (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies. J Gastrointest Surg 19(3):516–526CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Lau S, Aubin S, Rosberger Z, Gourdji I, How J, Gotlieb R, Drummond N, Eniu I, Abitbol J, Gotlieb W (2014) Health-related quality of life following robotic surgery: a pilot study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 36(12):1071–1078CrossRefPubMed Lau S, Aubin S, Rosberger Z, Gourdji I, How J, Gotlieb R, Drummond N, Eniu I, Abitbol J, Gotlieb W (2014) Health-related quality of life following robotic surgery: a pilot study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 36(12):1071–1078CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Abitbol J, Lau S, Ramanakumar AV, Press JZ, Drummond N, Rosberger Z, Aubin S, Gotlieb R, How J, Gotlieb WH (2014) Prospective quality of life outcomes following robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol 134(1):144–149CrossRefPubMed Abitbol J, Lau S, Ramanakumar AV, Press JZ, Drummond N, Rosberger Z, Aubin S, Gotlieb R, How J, Gotlieb WH (2014) Prospective quality of life outcomes following robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol 134(1):144–149CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Reynisson P, Persson J (2013) Hospital costs for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol 130(1):95–99CrossRefPubMed Reynisson P, Persson J (2013) Hospital costs for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol 130(1):95–99CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Yu X, Lum D, Kiet TK, Fuh KC, Orr J Jr, Brooks RA, Ueda SM, Chen LM, Kapp DS, Chan JK (2013) Utilization of and charges for robotic versus laparoscopic versus open surgery for endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol 107(6):653–658CrossRefPubMed Yu X, Lum D, Kiet TK, Fuh KC, Orr J Jr, Brooks RA, Ueda SM, Chen LM, Kapp DS, Chan JK (2013) Utilization of and charges for robotic versus laparoscopic versus open surgery for endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol 107(6):653–658CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Kajiwara N, Patrick Barron J, Kato Y, Kakihana M, Ohira T, Kawate N, Ikeda N (2015) Cost-benefit performance of robotic surgery compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under the Japanese National Health Insurance System. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 21(2):95–101CrossRefPubMed Kajiwara N, Patrick Barron J, Kato Y, Kakihana M, Ohira T, Kawate N, Ikeda N (2015) Cost-benefit performance of robotic surgery compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under the Japanese National Health Insurance System. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 21(2):95–101CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparative health technology assessment of robotic-assisted, direct manual laparoscopic and open surgery: a prospective study
Authors
Giuseppe Turchetti
Francesca Pierotti
Ilaria Palla
Stefania Manetti
Cinzia Freschi
Vincenzo Ferrari
Alfred Cuschieri
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4991-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2017 Go to the issue