A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy

Economic evaluations of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and the factors affecting its cost-effectiveness: a systematic review

This systematic review aims to summarize the progress made in the study of the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) worldwide and to analyze the economic factors influencing this, in an attempt to provide methodological guidance for conducting economic evaluation studies in a domestic context, and to put forward suggestions for improving the cost-effectiveness of RARP in emerging markets. We conducted a systematic literature review and analysis of studies published worldwide from January 2000 to July 2024 concerning the economic evaluation of RARP compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP). A total of 16 papers were included. The literature was generally of good quality. Methodological approaches. varied among studies, leading to inconsistent economic findings. The choice of research settings, including the perspective of the study and time horizon, as well as differences in parameters such as surgical volumes and cost of equipment purchases, were the main factors that affected the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Based on the methodology used in the included studies, we suggest that short-term, localized economic evaluations should be carried out first, based on follow-up studies in emerging markets, whereas long-term economic evaluations can be performed when sufficient data are available. Referring to the analysis of the economic factors influencing cost-effectiveness in the included studies, we suggest that different research settings should be chosen according to the purpose for which policymakers allocate public funds, and that the cost-effectiveness of RARP can be enhanced through technical improvements and resource optimization.

Assessing Stress Induced by Fluid Shifts and Reduced Cerebral Clearance during Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy under Trendelenburg Positioning (UroTreND Study)

In addition to general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) necessitates maintaining a capnoperitoneum and placing the patient in a pronounced downward tilt (Trendelenburg position). While the effects of the resulting fluid shift on the cardiovascular system seem to be modest and well tolerated, the effects on the brain and the blood-brain barrier have not been thoroughly investigated. Previous studies indicated that select patients showed an increase in the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), detected by ultrasound during RALP, which suggests an elevation in intracranial pressure. We hypothesize that the intraoperative fluid shift results in endothelial dysfunction and reduced cerebral clearance, potentially leading to transient neuronal damage. This prospective, monocentric, non-randomized, controlled clinical trial will compare RALP to conventional open radical prostatectomy (control group) in a total of 50 subjects. The primary endpoint will be the perioperative concentration of neurofilament light chain (NfL) in blood using single-molecule array (SiMoA) as a measure for neuronal damage. As secondary endpoints, various other markers for endothelial function, inflammation, and neuronal damage as well as the ONSD will be assessed. Perioperative stress will be evaluated by questionnaires and stress hormone levels in saliva samples. Furthermore, the subjects will participate in functional tests to evaluate neurocognitive function. Each subject will be followed up until discharge. Conclusion: This trial aims to expand current knowledge as well as to develop strategies for improved monitoring and higher safety of patients undergoing RALP. The trial was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00031041 on 11 January 2023.

Senhance robotic radical prostatectomy: A single-centre, 3-year experience

BACKGROUND

Senhance Surgical System is a novel robotic platform used in University Hospital Centre Zagreb since February 2019. In this study, we present our 3-year experience with this platform.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were prospectively collected for 200 patients who underwent extraperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) from May 2019 to March 2022.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 65 years, and the prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 ng/mL. Clinically, most of the patients had T1c stage. The estimated blood loss was 250 mL, and there were 6 conversions to laparoscopic and 2 to open prostatectomy. There were 15 early postoperative complications, 11 Clavien-Dindo classification grade I, 3 grade II and 1 grade IV. Functional outcomes in the first 150 patients: 140 patients (93.3%) had good urinary control. Thirteen patients underwent additional oncological treatment.

CONCLUSION

RRP performed with the Senhance robotic platform is a feasible and safe procedure with good initial results.

First human surgery using a surgical assistance robotics device for laparoscopic cholecystectomies

BACKGROUND

Over the past 20 years, surgeons involved in soft tissue minimally invasive surgery have experienced the pros and cons of both conventional and tele-robotic laparoscopic approaches. The Maestro System, developed by Moon Surgical (Paris, France) aims to overcome the challenges inherent to both approaches thanks to a new concept that augments the surgeon's performance at the bedside during a laparoscopic procedure.

METHODS

The current study aims to present the first human experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the Maestro system on 10 patients.

RESULTS

All ten procedures were completed successfully. No significant complications related to the use of the Maestro system werenoted.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary observations appear to support the benefits of the Maestro system in non-emergent laparoscopic cholecystectomies. It goes without saying that further research is necessary to demonstrate the safety of this approach in other procedures.

The Availability, Cost, Limitations, Learning Curve and Future of Robotic Systems in Urology and Prostate Cancer Surgery

Robot-assisted surgical systems (RASS) have revolutionised the management of many urological conditions over the last two decades with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) now being considered by many to be the preferred surgical approach. Intuitive Surgical has dominated the market during this time period with successive iterations of the da Vinci model. The expiration of patents has opened the RASS market and several new contenders have become available or are currently in development. This comprehensive narrative review aims to explore the merits of each robotic system as well as the evidence and barriers to their use. The newly developed RASS have increased the versality of robotic surgical systems to a wider range of settings through advancement in technology. The increased competition may result in an overall reduction in cost, broadening the accessibility of RASS. Learning curves and training remain a barrier to their use, but the situation appears to be improving through dedicated training programmes. Outcomes for RARP have been well investigated and tend to support improved early functional outcomes. Overall, the rapid developments in the field of robot-assisted surgery indicate the beginning of a promising new era to further enhance urological surgery.

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.

Robot-Assisted Surgery vs Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Prostate cancer is the most common men cancer in France. Continuous progress in oncology led to develop robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomies (rRP) and robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy (rSBRT). The present study aims at comparing economic and clinical impacts of prostate cancer treatments performed either with rSBRT or rRP in France. A Markov model using TreeAge Pro software was chosen to calculate annual costs; utilities and transition probabilities of localized prostate cancer treatments. Patients were eligible for radiotherapy or surgery and the therapeutic decision was a robot-assisted intervention. Over a 10-year period, rSBRT yielded a significantly higher number of quality-adjusted life years than rRP (8.37 vs 6.85). In France, rSBRT seemed more expensive than rRP (€19,475 vs €18,968, respectively). From a societal perspective, rRP was more cost-saving (incremental cost effectiveness ratio = €332/QALY). The model was sensitive to variations of costs of the initial and recurrence state in one-way sensitivity analyses. Robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy seems more cost-effective than Radical Prostatectomy in terms of QALY despite the slightly higher initial cost due to the use of radiotherapy. It would be interesting to conduct comparative quality of life studies in France over longer periods of time.

Is robotic lobectomy cheaper? A micro-cost analysis

Higher capital costs and operating room costs associated with Lobectomy via Robot Assisted Thoracic Surgery (RATS) have previously been suggested as the principal contributors to the elevated overall cost. This study uses a micro-costing approach to a previous analysis of clinical outcomes of RATS, Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) and Open Lobectomy to evaluate the most significant cost drivers for the higher cost of robot-assisted lobectomy. A micro-costing model was developed to reflect the pathway of patients from day of surgery through the first 30 days following lobectomy. Costs were provided for RATS, VATS and Open approaches. Sensitivity analysis was performed specifically in the area of staff costs. A threshold sensitivity analysis of the overall cost components was also performed. Total cost per case for the RATS approach was €13,321 for the VATS approach €11,567, and for the Open approach €12,582. The overall cost differences were driven primarily by the elevated consumable costs associated with RATS Lobectomy. Capital costs account for a relatively small proportion of the per-case cost difference. This study presents a detailed analysis of the cost drivers for lobectomy, modelled for the three primary surgical approaches. We believe this is a useful tool for surgeons, hospital management, and service commissioning agencies to accurately and comprehensively determine where cost savings can be applied in their programme to improve the cost-effectiveness of RATS lobectomy.

Robotic surgery costs: Revealing the real villains

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the main drivers of robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) hospitalization costs, in addition to assess perioperative predictors that impact costs.

METHODS

Overall, 474 RARP were analyzed between February 2018 and December 2019. The association between perioperative variables and total direct costs was analyzed by simple and multiple linear regression.

DISCUSSION

The main drivers of RARP hospitalization costs were robotic surgical supplies. Costs increased with American Society of Anesthesiologists score 3, a one-hour increase in OR time, increased utilization of polymeric clip packs and longer length of hospital stay. There was a 11.5% reduction in costs with the use of four robotic instruments instead of five.

CONCLUSION

Costs of hospitalization were mainly influenced by the OR time, use of surgical supplies and length of hospital stay. Reducing the number of robotic instruments used in RARP represented the potentially modifiable factor with the greatest impact on cost reduction.

Measuring Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the most common solid organ malignancy in men. Fortunately, at the time of diagnosis, the majority of cases are staged as localized or regional disease, conferring excellent 5- and 10-year cure rates. There are several first line treatment options including surgical approaches such as robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radiation therapy (RT) available to patients with localized disease that offer similar PCa oncologic outcomes but are associated with potentially significant side effects which may impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains. Recently, clinicians and investigators have sought to better understand these changes in HRQOL metrics with the utilization of patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Given that RARP represents the most common surgical treatment for PCa in the United States, there has been a particular interest in assessing these outcomes derived by patient perspectives to more fully appreciate treatment-related impact on quality of life following RARP.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review sought to explore the instruments available to measure quality of life after RARP, a review of the PRO data after RARP, and future directions for assessing and improving quality of life outcomes following this surgery.

CLINICAL USE

There are several treatment options for men diagnosed with local and regional prostate cancer with similar oncologic outcomes but differing patterns of side effects affecting post-treatment quality of life. Understanding data reported directly by patients following RARP about their side effects and quality of life gives providers additional information for appropriate preoperative counseling for patients choosing between treatment options for their prostate cancer.

Anesthetic Implications of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Pediatric Patients

The novel technology of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has been utilized in children for the past two decades with several potential clinical benefits including reduction of postoperative pain, shortened hospital length of stay, and improved cosmetic outcomes. While associated costs and the limitations regarding instruments for smaller pediatric patients remain relevant issues, surgeon comfort related to ergonomic design in combination with enhanced three-dimensional high-fidelity imaging and tissue handling compared to traditional minimally invasive approached may offer improved surgical and postoperative outcomes. Given that the demand for this innovative technology will likely continue to expand in the field of pediatric surgery, pediatric anesthesiologists will be called upon to provide anesthetic care to patients exposed to this novel surgical technology with its unique features, intraoperative requirements, and potential complications. The current manuscript provides a narrative review of robotic-assisted surgery and discusses important anesthetic considerations and potential complications of these techniques.

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

IMPORTANCE

With the current patterns of adoption and use of robotic surgery and improvement in the overall survival of patients with prostate cancer, it is important to evaluate the immediate and long-term cost implications of treatments for patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare health care costs and use 1 year after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) vs robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used a US commercial claims database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. A total of 11 457 men aged 18 to 64 years who underwent inpatient radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and were continuously enrolled with medical and prescription drug coverage from 180 days before to 365 days after inpatient prostatectomy were identified. An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed to examine the differences in costs and use of health care services by surgical modality. Data analysis was conducted from September 2019 to July 2020.

EXPOSURES

Type of surgical procedure: ORP vs RARP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Three outcomes within 1 year after the inpatient prostatectomy were investigated: (1) total health care costs, including reimbursement paid by insurers and out of pocket by patients; (2) health care use, including inpatient readmission, emergency department, hospital outpatient, and office visits; and (3) estimated days missed from work due to health care use.

RESULTS

Of the 11 457 patients who underwent inpatient prostatectomy, 1604 (14.0%) had ORP and 9853 (86.0%) had RARP and most patients (8467 [73.9%]) were aged 55 to 64 years. Compared with patients who underwent ORP, those who received RARP had a higher cost at the index hospitalization (mean difference, $2367; 95% CI, $1821-$2914; P < .001), but similar total cumulative costs were observed within 180 days (mean difference, $397; 95% CI, -$582 to $1375; P = .43) and 1 year after discharge (-$383; 95% CI, -$1802 to $1037; P = .60). One-year postdischarge health care use was significantly lower in the RARP compared with ORP group for mean numbers of emergency department visits (-0.09 visits; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.07 visits; P < .001) and hospital outpatient visits (-1.5 visits; -1.63 to -1.36 visits; P < .001). The reduction in use of health care services among patients who underwent RARP translated into additional savings of $2929 (95% CI, $1600-$4257; P < .001) and approximately 1.69 fewer days (95% CI, 1.49-1.89 days; P < .001) missed from work for health care visits.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Total cumulative cost in this study was similar between ORP and RARP 1 year post discharge; this finding suggests that lower postdischarge health care use after RARP may offset the higher costs during the index hospitalization.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience

Prostate cancer (PCa) treatment has been greatly impacted by the robotic surgery. The economics literature about PCa is scarce. We aim to carry-out cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) using the "time-driven activity-based cost" methodology. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in 2013 were retrospectively analyzed in a cancer center over a 5-year period. Fifty-six patients underwent RALP and 149 patients underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The amounts were subject to a 5% discount as correction of monetary value considering time elapsed. Calculation of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) related to events avoided and the Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) related to "QALY saved" were performed. QALY was performed using values of utility and "disutility" weights from the "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry". Hypothetical cohorts were simulated with 1000 patients in each group, based on the treatment outcomes. Total and average costs were R$1,903,671.93, and R$12,776.32 for the RRP group, and R$1,373,987.26, and R$24,535.49 for the RALP group, respectively. The costs to treat the hypothetical cohorts were R$10,010,582.35 for RRP, and R$19,224,195.90 for RALP. ICER calculation evidenced R$9,213,613.55 of difference between groups. ICUR was R$ 22,690.83 per QALY saved. Limitations were the lack of cost-effectiveness analyses related to re-hospitalization rates and complications, single center perspective, and currency-translation differences. Medical fees were not included. RALP showed advantages in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility over RRP in the long term. Despite the increased costs to the introduction of robotic technology, its adoption should be encouraged due to the gains.

Comparison of surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the oncological and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We compared patients who underwent the RARP (n=778) and LRP (n=48) techniques for prostate cancer between January 2008 and July 2017 in our clinic. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative data, pathologic evaluation, continence, and potency rates were collected and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The preoperative and demographic data of the patients we included in our study were similar. The mean operation time estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the RARP group. The statistical analysis was in favor of robotic prostatectomy in the terms of the mean length of hospitalization, catheterization time, and early (<30 days) and intermediate (31-90 days) complications. Positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence rates, and recovery of continence and erectile function, were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RARP and LRP in organ-confined prostate cancer are safe and effective methods. Robotic prostatectomy has a shorter operative time, length of hospitalization, catheterization time, and lower early and late complication rates.

Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in Stone Management

Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up are all influential in determining the overall cost to the health care system for kidney stones. New innovations in the field of nephrolithiasis have been abundant, including disposable ureteroscopes, ultrasound-guided approaches to percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and advanced laser lithotripters. Identifying cost-effective treatment strategies encourages practitioners to be thoughtful about providing value-based high-quality care and remains on important principle in the treatment of urinary stone disease.

Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open prostatectomy for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a matched case-control study

Little data exist on effect of undergoing laparoscopic prostatectomy(LP) versus open prostatectomy(OP) upon 30-day mortality rates among low-risk prostate cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified men (2004 to 2013) with biopsy-proven, low-risk prostate cancer who met the eligibility criteria: N0, M0, T-stage≤2A, PSA≤10 ng/mL, and Gleason score=6. We utilized a 1:N matched case-control study, with cases and controls matched by race, insurance status, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, surgical margin status, and facility type to investigate the short-term comparative effectiveness of LP versus OP.

Results

Among the 448,773 patients in the National Cancer Database with low-risk prostate cancer, 116,359 patients met the above inclusion criteria. The target group was restricted to patients who received LP or OP, thus, leaving 44,720 patients for the study. The use of LP (compared with OP) was associated with patients with privately insured patients, treatment at an academic/research centers, high-volume hospitals, and white race (all P<0.01). LP was less frequently utilized for black patients, those who received treatment at community centers, and for those with Medicaid insurance(all P<0.01). The odds ratio of death for surgery type (laparoscopy vs. open) was estimated at 0.31 (95% confidence interval, 0.135-0.701; P<0.05). Thus, the risk of death within 30 days was 69% lower with LP compared with OP.

Conclusions

We found that the 30-day mortality rate among low-risk prostate cancer patients is significantly lower among patients who received LP when compared with OP, with various clinicopathologic parameters associated with its preferential use.

Cost of New Technologies in Prostate Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review of Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy, Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy, and Proton Beam Therapy

CONTEXT

Some of the high costs of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and proton beam therapy may be offset by better outcomes or less resource use during the treatment episode.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature to identify the key economic trade-offs implicit in a particular treatment choice for prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically reviewed the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and protocol. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published between January 2001 and July 2016, which compared the treatment costs of RARP, IMRT, or proton beam therapy to the standard treatment. We identified 37, nine, and three studies, respectively.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

RARP is costlier than radical retropubic prostatectomy for hospitals and payers. However, RARP has the potential for a moderate cost advantage for payers and society over a longer time horizon when optimal cancer and quality-of-life outcomes are achieved. IMRT is more expensive from a payer's perspective compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, but also more cost effective when defined by an incremental cost effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year. Proton beam therapy is costlier than IMRT and its cost effectiveness remains unclear given the limited comparative data on outcomes. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the quality of evidence was low for RARP and IMRT, and very low for proton beam therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with new versus traditional technologies is costlier. However, given the low quality of evidence and the inconsistencies across studies, the precise difference in costs remains unclear. Attempts to estimate whether this increased cost is worth the expense are hampered by the uncertainty surrounding improvements in outcomes, such as cancer control and side effects of treatment. If the new technologies can consistently achieve better outcomes, then they may be cost effective.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We review the cost and cost effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy in prostate cancer treatment. These technologies are costlier than their traditional counterparts. It remains unclear whether their use is associated with improved cure and reduced morbidity, and whether the increased cost is worth the expense.