Health care cost consequences of using robot technology for hysterectomy: a register-based study of consecutive patients during 2006-2013

Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynaecology: An Evolving Assistive Technology

Laparoscopic surgery is extensively utilized to treat a range of gynaecological conditions and pathologies. The advantages of laparoscopic surgery include the minimalization of blood loss and scarring, improved recovery times, and shorter hospital admissions. However, robotic technologies have had an increasing presence within gynaecological laparoscopic surgery in recent decades. This literature review therefore aims to discuss laparoscopy from 3 perspectives. First, the evolution of laparoscopy is reviewed with a focus on its origins, its transition from a diagnostic to an operative tool, and its role in present-day gynaecology. Second, interventions for benign gynaecological conditions (including excision of benign ovarian tumours, total laparoscopic hysterectomy, and laparoscopic myomectomy) are reviewed. The laparoscopic management of malignant gynaecology (including ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer) is also discussed. Finally, whilst robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is experiencing rapid technological advancement, it is pertinent to consider the extent of its benefits when compared to open or conventional laparoscopic approaches in gynaecological surgery.

Strategies and factors to maximize cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in benign gynecological disease

Operating room procedures account for half of the gross hospital cost in the United States per annum. Hysterectomy is the eighth most common surgery nationally, with more than 300,000 cases every year. Since the introduction of robotic surgery in benign gynecology, concern has been raised regarding the increased cost without significant improvements in outcomes or practice. Surgeon volume, complication rates, length of hospital stay, and selected intraoperative instrumentation are all factors that have a direct effect on cost in robotic surgery. Cost is indirectly influenced by the OR team workflow, postoperative processes to expedite discharge, and converting surgery to the ambulatory setting. More research is needed to develop evidence-based practices for cost containment in robotic surgery.

Long term resource consequences of a nationwide introduction of robotic surgery for women with early stage endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

The majority of cost-studies related to robotic surgery has a short follow-up and primarily report the costs from the index surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term resource consequences of introducing robotic surgery for early stage endometrial cancer in Denmark.

METHODS

The study included all women with early stage endometrial cancer who underwent robotic, laparoscopic and open access surgery from January 2008 to June 2015. Data was linked from national databases to determine resource consumption and costs from hospital treatments, outpatient contacts, primary health care sector visits, labor market affiliation and prescription of medication. Each patient was observed in a period of 12 months before- and after surgery. The key exposure variable was women who were exposed to robotic surgery compared to those who were not.

RESULTS

A total of 4133 women underwent surgery for early stage endometrial cancer. The study found additional costs of $7309 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2100-11,620, P = 0.001) per patient in the group exposed to robotic surgery including long-term costs post-surgery compared to the non-exposed group (non-robotic group). When controlling for time trends, the introduction of robotic surgery did not reduce the number of bed days (mean diff -0.42, 95% CI -3.03-2.19, P = 0.752).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of robotic surgery for early stage endometrial cancer did not generate any long-term cost savings. The additional costs of robotic surgery were primarily driven by the index surgery. Any reduction in bed days could be explained by time trends.

Review of strategies and factors to maximize cost-effectiveness of robotic hysterectomies and myomectomies in benign gynecological disease

Common benign gynecologic procedures include hysterectomies and myomectomies, with hysterectomy being the most common gynecologic procedure in the United States [1]. While historically performed via laparotomy, the field of gynecologic surgery was revolutionized with the advent of laparoscopic techniques, with the most recent advancement being the introduction of robotic-assisted surgery in 2005. Robotic surgery has all the benefits of laparoscopic surgery such as decreased blood loss, quicker return to activities, and shorter length of hospital stay. Additional robotic-specific advantages include but are not limited to improved ergonomics, 3D visualization, and intuitive surgical movements. Despite these advantages, one of the most commonly cited drawbacks of robotic surgery is the associated cost. While the initial cost to purchase the robotic console and its associated maintenance costs are relatively high, robotic surgery can be cost-effective when utilized correctly.This article reviews application strategies and factors that can offset traditional costs and maximize the benefits of robotic surgery.

A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this review was to evaluate the methodological design in studies reporting resource use and costs related to robotic surgery in gynecology.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant studies before May 2016. The quality of the methodological design was assessed with items regarding methodology from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-two relevant studies were included. None of the reviewed studied fully complied with the CHEERS methodological checklist. Background and objectives, Target population and subgroups and Setting and location were covered in sufficient details in all studies whereas the Study perspective, Justification of the time horizon, Discount rate, and Estimating resources and costs were covered in less than 50%. Most of the studies (29/32) used the health care sector perspective whereas the societal perspective was applied in three studies. The time horizon was stated in 18/32 of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of studies evaluating costs of robotic surgery was low. The longest follow-up was 4 months and in general, the use of detailed cost data were lacking in most of the investigations. Key determinants, such as purchasing, maintenance costs of the robotic platform, and the use of surgical equipment, were rarely reported. If health care cost analyses lack transparency regarding cost drivers included it may not provide a true foundation for decision-making.