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

Cost analysis of new robotic competitors: a comparison of direct costs for initial hospital stay between Da Vinci and Hugo RAS for radical prostatectomy

Robotic surgery with Da Vinci has revolutionized the treatment of several diseases, including prostate cancer; nevertheless, costs remain the major drawback. Recently, new robotic platforms entered the market aiming to reduce costs and improve the access to robotic surgery. The aim of the study is to compare direct cost for initial hospital stay of radical prostatectomy performed with two different robotic systems, the Da Vinci and the new Hugo RAS system. This is a projection study that applies cost of robotic surgery, derived from a local tender, to the clinical course of robotic radical prostatectomy (RALP) performed with Da Vinci and Hugo RAS. The study was performed in a public referral center for robotic surgery equipped with both systems. The cost of robotic surgery from a local tender were considered and included rent, annual maintenance, and a per-procedure fee covering the setup of four robotic instruments. Those costs were applied to patients who underwent RALP with both systems since November 2022. The primary endpoint is to evaluate direct costs of initial hospital stay for Da Vinci and Hugo RAS, by considering equipment costs (as derived from the tender), and costs of theater and of hospitalization. The direct per-procedure cost is €2,246.31 for a Da Vinci procedure and €1995 for a Hugo RALP. In the local setting, Hugo RAS provides 11% of cost saving for RALP. By applying this per-procedure cost to our clinical data, the expenditure for the entire index hospitalization is € 6.7755,1 for Da Vinci and € 6.637,15 for Hugo RALP. The new Hugo RAS system is willing to reduce direct expenditures of robotic surgery for RALP; furthermore, it provides similar peri-operative outcomes compared to the Da Vinci. However, other drivers of costs should be taken into account, such as the duration of OR use-that is more than just console time and may depend on the facility's background and organization. Further variations in direct costs of robotic systems are related to caseload, local agreements and negotiations. Thus, cost comparison of new robotic platform still remains an ongoing issue.

New technology in prostate cancer and financial toxicity

The management of prostate cancer has significantly evolved over the last few decades with the emergence of new diagnostic and treatment technologies, which are typically more expensive than the previous alternatives. However, decision-making regarding which diagnostics and treatment to pursue is often influenced by perceived benefits, adverse effects, and physician recommendations, without considering the financial liability borne by patients. New technologies may exacerbate financial toxicity by replacing less costly alternatives, promoting unrealistic expectations, and expanding treatment to those who would have previously gone untreated. More judicious use of technologies with an understanding of the contexts in which they are most beneficial may help prevent avoidable financial toxicity to patients.

Strategies to improve cost effectiveness of robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in emerging economies

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP) for localized prostate cancer from a healthcare perspective in Colombia. A systematic review was conducted in Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, to identify relevant publications up to January 2020 to summarize clinical outcomes related to effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy. A tree decision model was designed given the clinical outcomes and possibilities of complication and success. Outcomes were defined as complications according to Clavien - Dindo classification and success measured as urethral stricture rate. Cost was divided into two categories: surgical procedure and complications. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and a deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of the uncertainty on the conclusions of the model. A 90-day horizon was defined. Direct medical costs associated with RALRP were $6.511 ($ 5.127- $8.138), and for ORP were $4.476 ($2.170-$ 6.511). The average cost for complication management was rated at $ 327 for RALRP and $ 382 for ORP, based on an augmented risk of post-operative urethral stricture in the ORP group (2.4% vs 10.8%). ICER was calculated in USD $18.987. The cost of RALRP has to be reduced to around USD 5.345 to achieve an ICER under 1 GDP making the intervention feasible. Using a 3 GDP per capita threshold, the implementation of RALRP could be cost-effective for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in emerging economies. Bolder measures including the use of one needle carrier, three robotic arms, and a shorten hospitalization program of 24 h, can save around $1000 for each patient, achieving the goal cost of $5345 needed for a favorable ICER.

Embracing robotic surgery in low- and middle-income countries: Potential benefits, challenges, and scope in the future

Robotic surgery has applications in many medical specialties, including urology, general surgery, and surgical oncology. In the context of a widespread resource and personnel shortage in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), the use of robotics in surgery may help to reduce physician burnout, surgical site infections, and hospital stays. However, a lack of haptic feedback and potential socioeconomic factors such as high implementation costs and a lack of trained personnel may limit its accessibility and application. Specific improvements focused on improved financial and technical support to LMICs can help improve access and have the potential to transform the surgical experience for both surgeons and patients in LMICs. This review focuses on the evolution of robotic surgery, with an emphasis on challenges and recommendations to facilitate wider implementation and improved patient outcomes.

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study

Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0−100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p < 0.001) and 46.2%/28.1% had a PatR >15, respectively (p < 0.001). Based on the MVBM, RARP patients showed PatR >15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP.

Single-site multiport vs. conventional multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A propensity score matching comparative study

Objective

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a dynamically evolving technique with its new evolution of single-site RARP. Here we sought to describe our extraperitoneal technique, named the single-site multiport RARP (ssmpRARP) using the da Vinci Si® platform and compare it with the transperitoneal conventional multiport RARP (cmpRARP).

Materials and Methods

Data were retrospectively collected for patients who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer from June 2020 to January 2022 in a single center. Propensity score matching was performed based on age, prostate size, body mass index, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy usage, prostate-specific antigen levels, and clinical T stage. The differences between the matched two groups were investigated.

Results

Of the patients, 20 underwent ssmpRARP and 42 underwent cmpRARP during the period. After matching, 18 patients from each group were selected. Median follow-up was 7.8 months (2–12 months) for the ssmpRARP group, and 15.0 months (3–26 months) for cmpRARP. The demographic features between the two groups were comparable. The median total operative time, estimated blood loss, pathologic data, early follow-up outcomes, and hospitalization stays and costs were similar between the two groups. The ssmpRARP group tended to return to their bowel activities earlier (44.78 ± 10.83 h vs. 54.89 ± 12.97 h, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in complication rates.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility and safety of performing extraperitoneal ssmpRARP using the da Vinci Si® robotic platform. Our technique showed comparable short-term outcomes with the transperitoneal cmpRARP. Prospective trials and long-term follow-up are necessary to confirm these results.

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

Different surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021246811.

Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Expenditures and Utilization Following Minimally Invasive vs Open Nephrectomy

IMPORTANCE

Given the widespread adoption and clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery approaches (MIS) in partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN), assessment of long-term cost implications is relevant.

OBJECTIVE

To compare health care utilization and expenditures within 1 year after MIS and open surgery (OS).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted using a US commercial claims database between 2013 and 2018. A total of 5104 patients aged 18 to 64 years who underwent PN or RN for kidney cancer and were continuously insured for 180 days before and 365 days after surgery were identified. An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed to examine differences in costs and use of health care services.

EXPOSURES

Surgical approach (MIS or OS).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes assessed included 1-year total health care expenditure, health care utilizations, and estimated days missed from work.

RESULTS

Of the 5104 patients, 2639 had PN (2008 MIS vs 631 OS) and 2465 had RN (1816 MIS vs 649 OS) and most were male (PN: 1657 [62.8%]; RN: 399 [63.1%]) and between 55 and 64 years of age (PN: 1034 [51.3%]; RN: 320 [55.7%]). Patients who underwent MIS had lower index hospital length of stay compared with OS (mean [95% CI] for PN: 2.45 [2.37-2.53] vs 3.78 [3.60-3.97] days; P < .001; for RN: 2.82 [2.73-2.91] vs 4.62 [4.41-4.83] days; P < .001), and lower index expenditure for RN ($28 999 [$28 243-$29 796] vs $31 977 [$30 729-$33 329]; P < .001). For PN, index expenditure was lower for OS than MIS (mean [95% CI], $27 480 [$26 263-$28 753] vs $30 380 [$29614-$31 167]; P < .001). Patients with MIS had lower 1-year postdischarge readmission rate (PN: 15.1% vs 21.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82; P < .001; RN: 15.6% vs 18.9%; OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-1.00; P = .05), and fewer hospital outpatient visits (mean [95% CI] for PN: 4.69 [4.48-4.90] vs 5.25 [4.84-5.66]; P = .01; RN: 5.50 [5.21-5.80] vs 6.71 [6.12-7.30]; P < .001) than those with OS. For RN, MIS was associated with 1.47 fewer missed workdays (95% CI, 0.57-2.38 days; P = .001). The reduction in health care use in MIS was associated with lower or similar total cumulative expenditures compared with OS (mean difference [95% CI] for PN: $331 [-$3250 to $3912]; P = .85; for RN: -$11 265 [-$17 065 to -$5465]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, MIS was associated with lower or similar total cumulative expenditure than OS in the period 1 year after discharge from the index surgery. These findings suggest that downstream expenditures and resource utilization should be considered when evaluating surgical approach for nephrectomy.

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in the UK

IMPORTANCE

The cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy remains a subject of debate. Emergence of recent critical clinical data and changes in surgical equipment costs due to their shared use by different clinical specialties necessitate an updated cost-effectiveness analysis in a centralized, largely government-funded health care system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS).

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LRP) using contemporary data on clinical outcomes, costs, and surgical volumes in the UK.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic analysis used a Markov model developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of RARP, LRP, and ORP to treat localized prostate cancer. The model was constructed from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model simulated 65-year-old men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer and were followed up for a 10-year period. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, LRP, and ORP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (direct medical costs and costs outside the NHS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Compared with LRP, RARP cost £1785 (US $2350) less and had 0.24 more QALYs gained; thus, RARP was a dominant option compared with LRP. Compared with ORP, RARP had 0.12 more QALYs gained but cost £526 (US $693) more during the 10-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of £4293 (US $5653)/QALY. Because the ICER was below the £30 000 (US $39 503) willingness-to-pay threshold, RARP was more cost-effective than ORP in the UK. The most sensitive variable influencing the cost-effectiveness of RARP was the lower risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Scenario analysis indicated RARP would remain more cost-effective than ORP as long as the BCR hazard ratios comparing RARP vs ORP were less than 0.99.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that in the UK, RARP has an ICER lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus is likely a cost-effective surgical treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer compared with ORP and LRP. The results were mainly driven by the lower risk of BCR for RARP. These findings may differ in other health care settings where different thresholds and costs may apply.

Out-of-pocket costs for commercially insured patients with localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Financial toxicity is an underappreciated component of cancer survivorship. Treatment-specific out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing localized prostate cancer treatment have not, to date, been described and may influence patient's decision making.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study among commercially-insured patients in the United States with incident prostate cancer from 2013 to 2018. We captured out-of-pocket and total costs in the year following diagnosis and compared these between patients receiving radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and no local treatment using propensity-score weighting adjusting for patient demographics and pre-diagnosis health utilization costs.

RESULTS

Among 30,360 included men [median age 59 years, 83% Charlson score 0], 15,854 underwent surgery, 5,265 radiotherapy, and 9,241 no local therapy in the year following diagnosis. In the 6-months preceding diagnosis, median overall and out-of-pocket health care costs were $2022 (interquartile range $3778) and $466 (interquartile range $781), respectively. Following propensity-score weighting, out-of-pocket costs were significantly lower for patients who received no active treatment (adjusted cost $1746, 95% confidence interval [CI] $1704-1788), followed by those who underwent surgery ($2983, 95% CI $2832-3142, P < 0.001), and those who underwent radiation ($3139, 95% CI $2939-3353, P < 0.001) in the 6-months following diagnosis. Similar patterns were seen with out-of-pocket costs 6 to 12 months following index, with overall costs, and with costs attributable to inpatient, outpatient medical, and outpatient pharmacy services.

CONCLUSIONS

Among commercially insured men with incident prostate cancer, active treatment with surgery or radiotherapy was associated with significantly higher out-of-pocket costs versus those who received no treatment, with little difference observed between treatment approaches.

A Comparative Study of the Ergonomic Risk to the Surgeon During Vesicoscopic and Robotic Cross-Trigonal Ureteric Reimplantation

Background: Maintenance of the body posture and precise repetitive movements during minimally invasive surgeries predispose the surgeons to the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The present study was designed to estimate the ergonomic risk of MSDs in a single surgeon while performing vesicoscopic ureteric reimplantation. Materials and Methods: All children with primary vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) undergoing vesicoscopic ureteric reimplantation through the laparoscopic (Group 1) or robotic (Group 2) approaches from July 2015 to October 2019 were included. Data, including age at the time of surgery, gender, the severity of VUR (grade), number of ureters involved (unilateral or bilateral), and procedural details, were recorded. Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) tool was used for the ergonomic risk assessment of each procedure. The REBA scores were graded as negligible (1), low (2-3), medium (4-7), high (8-10), and very high (11 or more). The risk index was considered as normal (1 or less) and high (>1). The ergonomic risk associated with both approaches was compared. Results: A total of 16 patients (Male:Female = 9:7) were included in the present study. Groups 1 and 2 had 11 and 5 patients, respectively. The average (range) age of the children belonging to Group 1 was significantly lesser than Group 2 (3 versus 7.5 years; P = .0004). The average duration of surgery was significantly longer in Groups 1 versus 2 (P = .03). The average REBA scores associated with the laparoscopic and robotic approaches were 13 and 5, respectively (P = .0006). The risk indices in both approaches were 3.25 and 1.25, respectively. Conclusion: In a limited cohort of patients, we observed an overall high risk of MSD to the surgeon while performing vesicoscopic ureteric reimplantation. The associated ergonomic risk was significantly less with the robotic (medium risk category) versus laparoscopic approach (very high risk category).

Evaluation and Management of Genitourinary Emergencies in Patients with Cancer

Background

Genitourinary emergencies in cancer patients are common. Most cancer treatments are administered in the outpatient setting, and patients with complications often visit the emergency department. However, there is no recent emergency medicine literature review focusing on genitourinary emergencies in the oncologic population. Objective of the review. To increase awareness of common genitourinary emergencies in patients with cancer and enable the prompt recognition and appropriate management of these conditions. Discussion. Genitourinary emergencies in patients with cancer require a multidisciplinary approach to treatment. The most common genitourinary emergencies in patients with cancer are related to infection, obstructive uropathy, hemorrhagic cystitis, and complications associated with urinary diversions. The treatment approach in patients with infections, including viral infections, is similar to those without cancer. Understanding the changes in the anatomy of patients with urinary diversions or fistulas can help with the management of genitourinary emergencies.

Conclusions

Familiarization with the uniqueness of genitourinary emergencies in patients with cancer is important for emergency physicians.