A cost evaluation methodology for surgical technologies

Robotic surgery versus Laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery: a short-term outcomes and cost systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to compare the operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost associated with Robotic Surgery (RS) and Laparascopic Surgery (LS) in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus databases. Studies comparing short-term outcomes and cost between RS and LS in patients with anti-reflux and hiatal hernia were included. Data on operative time, complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost were extracted. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the MINORS scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen retrospective observational studies involving a total of 555,368 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no statistically significant difference in operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, and mortality between RS and LS. However, LS was associated with lower costs compared to RS.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that RS has non-inferior short-term outcomes in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery, compared to LS. LS is more cost-effective, but RS offers potential benefits such as improved visualization and enhanced surgical techniques. Further research, including randomized controlled trials and long-term outcome studies, is needed to validate and refine these findings.

Cost-benefit ratio of modern medical education using micro-costing: a model calculation using the example of an innovative breast brachytherapy workshop

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Radiation oncology is an essential component of therapeutic oncology and necessitates well-trained personnel. Multicatheter brachytherapy (MCBT) is one radiotherapeutic option for early-stage breast cancer treatment. However, specialized hands-on training for MCBT is not currently included in the curriculum for residents. A recently developed hands-on brachytherapy workshop has demonstrated promising results in enhancing knowledge and practical skills. Nevertheless, these simulation-based teaching formats necessitate more time and financial resources. Our analyses include computational models for the implementation and delivery of this workshop and can serve as a basis for similar educational initiatives.

METHODS

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a previously developed and evaluated breast brachytherapy simulation workshop. Using a micro-costing approach, we estimated costs at a detailed level by considering supplies, soft- and hardware, and personnel time for each task. This method also allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the costs associated with implementing new medical techniques. The workshop costs were divided into two categories: development and workshop execution. The cost analysis was conducted on a per-participant basis, and the impact on knowledge improvement was measured using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The total workshop costs were determined by considering the initial workshop setup expenses including the development and conceptualization of the course with all involved collaborators, as well as the costs incurred for each individual course. The workshop was found to be financially efficient, with a per-participant cost of € 39, considering the industrial sponsorship provided for brachytherapy equipment. In addition, we assessed the workshop's efficacy by analyzing participant feedback using Likert scale evaluations. The findings indicated a notable enhancement in both theoretical and practical skills among the participants. Moreover, the cost-to-benefit ratio (CBFR) analysis demonstrated a CBFR of € 13.53 for each Likert point increment.

CONCLUSION

The hands-on brachytherapy workshop proved to be a valuable and approximately cost-effective educational program, leading to a significant enhancement in the knowledge and skills of the participants. Without the support of industrial sponsorship, the costs would have been unattainable.

Economic analysis of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia versus laparoscopic: is it sustainable for the healthcare system?

INTRODUCTION

There has been a rapid proliferation of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia, mainly in the United States, as it has shown similar outcomes to the laparoscopic approach but with a significant increase in associated costs. Our objective is to conduct a cost analysis in our setting (Spanish National Health System).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective single-center comparative study on inguinal hernia repair using a robotic approach versus laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair between October 2021 and July 2023 were analyzed. Out of these 98 patients, 20 (20.4%) were treated with the robotic approach, while 78 (79.6%) underwent the laparoscopic approach. When comparing both approaches, no significant differences were found in terms of complications, recurrences, or readmissions. However, the robotic group exhibited a longer surgical time (86 ± 33.07 min vs. 40 ± 14.46 min, p < 0.001), an extended hospital stays (1.6 ± 0.503 days vs. 1.13 ± 0.727 days, p < 0.007), as well as higher procedural costs (2318.63 ± 205.15 € vs. 356.81 ± 110.14 €, p < 0.001) and total hospitalization costs (3272.48 ± 408.49 € vs. 1048.61 ± 460.06 €, p < 0.001). These results were consistent when performing subgroup analysis for unilateral and bilateral hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits observed in terms of recurrence rates and post-surgical complications do not justify the additional costs incurred by the robotic approach to inguinal hernia within the national public healthcare system. Nevertheless, it represents a simpler way to initiate the robotic learning curve, justifying its use in a training context.

What are the observed procedural costs of vascular access surgery? Protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

A central component in the introduction of a novel surgical procedure or technique is an evaluation of its cost efficiency when compared with a benchmark standard of care. Accurate assessment of costs is thus essential in ensuring appropriate allocation of resources within a healthcare system. The treatment of kidney failure requires a significant volume of resources, and vascular access provision is the main modifiable cost. The costs of providing this service are obscured by generic NHS reference costs, which lack adequate granularity to allow meaningful comparisons between treatments. The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the reporting of procedural costs in all published economic analyses of vascular access surgery and perform a comparison of the reported procedural costs involved in arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and arteriovenous graft (AVG) creation. This will provide an estimate as to the accuracy of the NHS reference costs in this field.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A systematic search will be performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify full-text economic analyses of vascular access for haemodialysis in which the procedural cost of AVF or AVG creation is reported. Publications in English from 1 January 2000 to 30 August 2023, will be eligible for inclusion. Studies will be selected by title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies not reporting the procedural costs of surgery will be excluded. Data collected will pertain to procedural costs of AVF and AVG creation. Costs will be adjusted to a common currency using a gross domestic product (GDP) deflator index and conversion rates based on purchasing power parities for GDP. Comparison with NHS reference costs will indicate their reliability for use in future economic analyses in this field.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023458779.

What is the educational value and clinical utility of artificial intelligence for intraoperative and postoperative video analysis? A survey of surgeons and trainees

INTRODUCTION

Surgical complications often occur due to lapses in judgment and decision-making. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have made it possible to train algorithms that identify anatomy and interpret the surgical field. These algorithms can potentially be used for intraoperative decision-support and postoperative video analysis and feedback. Despite the very early success of proof-of-concept algorithms, it remains unknown whether this innovation meets the needs of end-users or how best to deploy it. This study explores users' opinion on the value, usability and design for adapting AI in operating rooms.

METHODS

A device-agnostic web-accessible software was developed to provide AI inference either (1) intraoperatively on a live video stream (synchronous mode), or (2) on an uploaded video or image file (asynchronous mode) postoperatively for feedback. A validated AI model (GoNoGoNet), which identifies safe and dangerous zones of dissection during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, was used as the use case. Surgeons and trainees performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy interacted with the AI platform and completed a 5-point Likert scale survey to evaluate the educational value, usability and design of the platform.

RESULTS

Twenty participants (11 surgeons and 9 trainees) evaluated the platform intraoperatively (n = 10) and postoperatively (n = 11). The majority agreed or strongly agreed that AI is an effective adjunct to surgical training (81%; neutral = 10%), effective for providing real-time feedback (70%; neutral = 20%), postoperative feedback (73%; neutral = 27%), and capable of improving surgeon confidence (67%; neutral = 29%). Only 40% (neutral = 50%) and 57% (neutral = 43%) believe that the tool is effective in improving intraoperative decisions and performance, or beneficial for patient care, respectively. Overall, 38% (neutral = 43%) reported they would use this platform consistently if available. The majority agreed or strongly agreed that the platform was easy to use (81%; neutral = 14%) and has acceptable resolution (62%; neutral = 24%), while 30% (neutral = 20%) reported that it disrupted the OR workflow, and 20% (neutral = 0%) reported significant time lag. All respondents reported that such a system should be available "on-demand" to turn on/off at their discretion.

CONCLUSIONS

Most found AI to be a useful tool for providing support and feedback to surgeons, despite several implementation obstacles. The study findings will inform the future design and usability of this technology in order to optimize its clinical impact and adoption by end-users.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection versus segmental colon resection for benign colonic polyps: a comparative cost analysis

AIM

The colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL-WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR.

METHOD

A single-centre 90-day 'in-hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL-WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL-WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period.

RESULTS

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL-WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL-WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL-WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL-WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered.

Robotic Plastic Surgery Education: Developing a Robotic Surgery Training Program Specific to Plastic Surgery Trainees

Over the past two decades, the surgical community has increasingly embraced robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) due to its potential to enhance accuracy and decrease surgical morbidity. Plastic surgery as a field has been historically slow to incorporate RAS, with lack of adequate training posing as one of the most commonly cited barriers. To date, robot technology has been utilized for various reconstructive procedures including flap elevation and inset, pedicle dissection, and microvascular anastomosis. As RAS continues to integrate within plastic surgery procedures, the need for a structured RAS curriculum designed for plastic surgery trainees is rising. This article delineates the essential components of a plastic surgery-specific RAS curriculum and outlines current training models and assessment tools utilized across surgical subspecialties to date.

Robotic Surgery and Hospital Reimbursement

The field of plastic surgery remains at the forefront of technological and surgical innovation. However, the promising applications of robotics in plastic surgery must be thoughtfully balanced with hospital finances and reimbursements. Robotic systems have been studied extensively across multiple surgical disciplines and across diverse health care systems. The results show that there may be equal or better patient outcomes than alternatives. In an era where fiscal responsibility in health care is a top priority, thoughtful budgeting and spending must be considered and revisited frequently to attain sustainable organizational models that ensure appropriate use of robotic technology.

Effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol Implementation on Cost and Outcomes by Type of Colectomy Performed

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are widely utilized for elective colorectal surgery to improve outcomes and decrease costs, but few studies have evaluated the impact of ERAS protocols on cost with respect to anatomic site of resection. This study evaluated the impact of ERAS protocol on elective colon resections by site and longitudinal impact over time.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study of 598 consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal resection before and after implementation of ERAS protocol from 2013 to 2017 was performed. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and cost. Comparative and multivariate inferential statistics were used to assess additional outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 598 patients (100 pre-ERAS vs 498 post-ERAS) were evaluated with an overall median LOS of 4 days for right and left colectomies and 3 days for transverse colectomies. When comparing type of resection before and after ERAS protocol introduction, an increased LOS for left hemicolectomies from 3.09 to 4.03 days (P = .047) was noted, with all other comparisons failing to reach statistical significance. Over time, an initial decrease in LOS for MIS approach after protocol introduction was observed; however, this effect diminished in the ensuing years and had no significant effect overall. Total cost of care was significantly increased post-ERAS for all cohorts except transverse colectomies. No further statistically significant differences were found.

CONCLUSION

After an initial improvement in outcomes, continued utilization of ERAS protocols demonstrated no improvement in LOS compared to pre-ERAS data and increased cost overall for patients regardless of site of resection.

A general framework for classifying costing methods for economic evaluation of health care

According to the most traditional economic evaluation manuals, all "relevant" costs should be included in the economic analysis, taking into account factors such as the patient population, setting, location, year, perspective and time horizon. However, cost information may be designed for other purposes. Health care organisations may lack sophisticated accounting systems and consequently, health economists may be unfamiliar with cost accounting terminology, which may lead to discrepancy in terms used in the economic evaluation literature and management accountancy. This paper identifies new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care and critically comments on each included article. For better clarification of terminology, a pragmatic glossary of terms is proposed. A scoping review of English and Spanish language literature (2005-2018) was conducted to identify new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care. The databases PubMed, Scopus and EconLit were searched. A total of 21 studies were included yielding 43 costing analysis. The most common analysis was top-down micro-costing (49%), followed by top-down gross-costing (37%) and bottom-up micro-costing (14%). Resource data were collected prospectively in 12 top-down studies (32%). Hospital database was the most common way of collection of resource data (44%) in top-down gross-costing studies. In top-down micro-costing studies, the most resource use data collection was the combination of several methods (38%). In general, substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods were found. The convergence of top-down and bottom-up methods may be an important topic in the next decades.

The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Compared with conventional top down costing, micro-costing may provide a more accurate method of resource-use assessment in economic analyses of surgical interventions, but little is known about its current use. The aim of this study was to systematically-review the use of micro-costing in surgery.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches identified complete papers, published in English reporting micro-costing of surgical interventions up to and including 22nd June 2018. Studies were critically appraised using a modified version of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) Checklist. Study demographics and details of resources identified; methods for measuring and valuing identified resources and any cost-drivers identified in each study were summarised.

RESULTS

A total of 85 papers were identified. Included studies were mainly observational comparative studies (n = 42, 49.4%) with few conducted in the context of a randomised trial (n = 5, 5.9%). The majority of studies were single-centre (n = 66, 77.6%) and almost half (n = 40, 47.1%) collected data retrospectively. Only half (n = 46, 54.1%) self-identified as being 'micro-costing' studies. Rationale for the use of micro-costing was most commonly to compare procedures/techniques/processes but over a third were conducted specifically to accurately assess costs and/or identify cost-drivers. The most commonly included resources were personnel costs (n = 76, 89.4%); materials/disposables (n = 76, 89.4%) and operating-room costs (n = 62,72.9%). No single resource was included in all studies. Most studies (n = 72, 84.7%) identified key cost-drivers for their interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

There is lack of consistency regarding the current use of micro-costing in surgery. Standardising terminology and focusing on identifying and accurately costing key cost-drivers may improve the quality and value of micro-costing in future studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration CRD42018099604.

Multi-Centre Micro-Costing of Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass, Sleeve Gastrectomy and Adjustable Gastric Banding Procedures for the Treatment of Severe, Complex Obesity

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in comparing the effectiveness and costs of alternative forms of bariatric surgery. We aimed to examine the per-patient, procedural costs of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Multi-centre (two National Health Service; NHS and one private hospital) micro-costing, using a time-and-motion study. Prospective collection of surgery times, staff quantities, equipment, instruments and consumables for 12 patients (four RYGB, five SG, three AGB) from patients' first surgeon interaction on the day of surgery to departure from the theatre recovery area. Costs were attached to quantities and mean costs compared. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed the impact of varying surgery inputs and consideration of additional plausible factors respectively on total costs.

RESULTS

Mean procedural costs were £5002 for RYGB, £4306 for SG and £2527 for AGB. Varying staff seniority or altering procedure times had small impacts on costs (± 4-6%). Reducing prices of consumables by 20% reduced costs by 10-13%. Accounting for differences in surgical technique by altering the number of staple reloads used impacted costs by ± 7-10%. Adjusted total costs from scenario analyses were similar to NHS tariffs for RYGB and SG (difference of £51 and -£119 respectively) but were much lower for AGB (difference of £1982).

CONCLUSIONS

These detailed costs will allow for more precise reimbursement of bariatric surgery and support comprehensive assessments of cost-effectiveness. Additional work to investigate costs of post-surgical care, re-operations and life-long support received by patients following surgery is required.

Should total thyroidectomies be performed by high-volume endocrine surgeons? A cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

The increased experience of a thyroid surgeon reduces the risk of postoperative complications. However, whether it is also cost-effective is currently unknown. The aim of the present study was to compare cost-effectiveness of high-volume (HVS) with low-volume surgeons (LVS) when performing a total thyroidectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study, comparing the mean cost of a total thyroidectomy per patient, between HVS and LVS. This included the cost of surgical procedure and pre- and post-operative inpatient hospitalization. A threshold of 25 thyroidectomies/year was used to discriminate between HVS and LVS.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and forty-one patients were classified into HVS and 342 into the LVS group. With regard to surgical complications, higher rates of temporary hypoparathyroidism and endangered airway were observed in the LVS than in the HVS group. The estimated total cost per patient was higher in the LVS compared with the HVS group [€1721 ± 396 ($1910 ± 439) versus €979 ± 68 ($1086 ± 487); p < 0.0001]. This cost remained higher when sub-analysis was performed for each surgical stage, involving either surgical procedure or pre- and post-operative inpatient hospitalization. Differences between LVS and HVS mainly involved the cost in surgical procedure (23% attributed to occupation of the operating room) and postoperative inpatient hospitalization (45% of the total thyroidectomy cost).

CONCLUSION

Total thyroidectomy performed by a HVS seems to be cost-effective compared with the one conducted by LVS. This is mostly attributed to the lower rates of surgical complications, such as postoperative hypoparathyroidism and airway obstruction.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

A budget impact analysis of a magnetic sphincter augmentation device for the treatment of medication-refractory mechanical gastroesophageal reflux disease: a United States payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Medication-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is sometimes treated with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF); however, this is a non-reversible procedure associated with important side effects and the need for repeat surgery. Removable magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) devices are an alternative, effective, and safe treatment option for such patients who have some lower esophageal sphincter function. The objective of this study was to assess the economic impact of introducing MSA technology (i.e., LINX Reflux Management System) into current practice from a US-payer perspective.

METHODS

An economic budget impact model was developed over a 1-year time horizon that compared current treatment of GERD patients who are medically managed (but refractory) or receiving LNF to future treatment of GERD patients that included a mix of patients treated with medical management only, LNF, or MSA. Resources included within the analyses were index procedures (inpatient and outpatient use), reoperations (revisions and removals), readmissions, healthcare visits, diagnostic tests, procedures, and medications. Medicare payment rates were typically used to inform unit costs.

RESULTS

Assuming a hypothetical commercial insurance population of 1 million members, the base-case analysis estimated a net cost savings of $111,367 with introduction of the MSA. This translates to a savings of $0.01 per member per month. Results were largely driven by avoided inpatient procedures with use of the MSA device. Alternative analyses exploring the potential impact of increasing surgical volumes predicted that results would remain cost saving if the proportion of MSA market share taken from LNF was ≥ 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study predicts that the introduction of the MSA device would lead to favorable budget impact results for the treatment of medication-refractory mechanical GERD for commercial payers. Future analyses will benefit from inclusion of middle-ground treatments as well as longer time horizons.

A micro-costing evaluation of lobectomy by thoracotomy versus thoracoscopy

Background

Two surgical strategies called video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery (VATS) and thoracotomy are used for lobectomy following lung cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the total cost of each technique (thoracotomy and VATS) during hospitalization in France.

Methods

A micro-costing methodology from the hospital perspective was implemented to assess the hospitalization costs, using direct observations, interviews, and data collection based on medical records in four hospitals. The average real cost of each technique was compared.

Results

From the hospital perspective, VATS was more expensive than thoracotomy but the difference was not significant (€6,941.30 vs. €5,950.11).

Conclusions

According to this micro-costing study, thoracotomy seems to be the less expensive technique for the hospital. Our data will be included in a cost-utility analysis to assess the medico-economic impact of the VATS strategy.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery is still debatable. Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has no clear clinical benefit over laparoscopic repair. We performed a comprehensive cost-analysis comparison between the two approaches for evaluation of their cost-effectiveness in a large healthcare system in the Western United States.

METHODS

Health records in 32 hospitals were queried for procedural costs of inguinal hernia repairs between January 2015 and March 2017. Elective robotic-assisted or laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repairs were included. Cost calculations were done using a utilization-based costing model. Total cost included: fixed cost, which comprises medical device and personnel costs, and variable cost, which comprises disposables and reusable instruments costs. Other outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), conversion to open, and operative times. Statistics were done using t test for continuous variables and χ² test for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 2405 cases, 734 robotic-assisted (633 Primary: 101 recurrent) and 1671 laparoscopic (1471 Primary: 200 recurrent), were included. The average total cost was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the robotic-assisted group ($5517) compared to the laparoscopic group ($3269). However, the average laparoscopic variable cost ($1105) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the robotic-assisted cost ($933). Whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups for LOS and conversion to open, average operative times were significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis for primary and recurrent inguinal hernias matched the overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has a significantly higher cost and significantly longer operative times, compared to the laparoscopic approach. The study has shown that only fixed cost contributes to the cost difference between the two approaches. Medical device cost plus the longer operative times are the main factors driving the cost difference. Laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is more cost-effective compared to a robotic-assisted approach.

Procedure costs associated with the use of Harmonic devices compared to conventional techniques in various surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

As compared to conventional techniques, recent meta-analyses have reported cost savings with Harmonic devices; however, only in thyroidectomy. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the costs associated with Harmonic devices versus conventional techniques across a range of surgical procedures.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to October 01, 2016 without language restrictions to identify randomized controlled trials comparing Harmonic devices to conventional techniques and reporting procedure costs (operating time plus operating equipment/consumables/device costs). Costs were pooled using the ratio of geometric means, and a random effects model was applied. Sensitivity analyses varying statistical methods, number of included studies, and cost outcomes were completed to test the robustness of the results.

Results

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 561 and 540 participants had procedures performed with Harmonic devices and conventional methods, respectively, with procedures including gastrectomy, thyroidectomy, colectomy, cholecystectomy, Nissen fundoplication, and pancreaticoduodenectomy. As compared to conventional methods, Harmonic devices reduced total procedure costs by 8.7% (p=0.029), resulting in an absolute reduction of US$227.77 from mean conventional technique costs, derived primarily from a reduction in operating time costs. When operating time costs, excluding operating equipment/consumables/device costs, were analyzed, costs were reduced by $544 per procedure with the use of Harmonic devices. The results from all sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost reductions with Harmonic devices.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that despite a higher device cost, Harmonic devices provide a statistically significant reduction in procedure costs, derived primarily from a reduction in operating time costs, across surgical procedures. In addition to functionality benefits, Harmonic devices may represent a potentially cost saving method to reduce overall hospital resource use. Future research should focus on potential costs and benefits from use of Harmonic devices in procedures not covered here.

A feasibility study investigating the acceptability and design of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren's contractures of the fingers (HAND-1): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dupuytren's contractures are fibrous cords under the skin of the palm of the hand. The contractures are painless but cause one or more fingers to curl into the palm, resulting in loss of function. Standard treatment within the NHS is surgery to remove (fasciectomy) or divide (fasciotomy) the contractures, and the treatment offered is frequently determined by surgeon preference. This study aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture.

METHODS/DESIGN

HAND-1 is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, randomised feasibility trial. Eligible patients aged 18 years or over who have one or more fingers with a Dupuytren's contracture of more than 30° in the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and/or proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints, well-defined cord(s) causing contracture, and have not undergone previous surgery for Dupuytren's on the same hand will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with either needle fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy. Participants will be followed-up for up to 6 months post surgery. Feasibility outcomes include number of patients screened, consented and randomised, adherence with treatment, completion of follow-up and identification of an appropriate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to use as primary outcome for a main trial. Embedded qualitative research, incorporating a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention, will focus on understanding and optimising the recruitment process, and exploring patients' experiences of trial participation and the interventions.

DISCUSSION

This study will assess whether a large multicentre trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren's contractures is feasible, and if so will provide data to inform its design and successful conduct.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number: ISRCTN11164292 . Registered on 28 August 2015.

What Are the Real Procedural Costs of Bariatric Surgery? A Systematic Literature Review of Published Cost Analyses

This review aims to evaluate the current literature on the procedural costs of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity. Using a published framework for the conduct of micro-costing studies for surgical interventions, existing cost estimates from the literature are assessed for their accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness based on their consideration of seven ‘important’ cost components. MEDLINE, PubMed, key journals and reference lists of included studies were searched up to January 2017. Eligible studies had to report per-case, total procedural costs for any type of bariatric surgery broken down into two or more individual cost components. A total of 998 citations were screened, of which 13 studies were included for analysis. Included studies were mainly conducted from a US hospital perspective, assessed either gastric bypass or adjustable gastric banding procedures and considered a range of different cost components. The mean total procedural costs for all included studies was US$14,389 (range, US$7423 to US$33,541). No study considered all of the recommended ‘important’ cost components and estimation methods were poorly reported. The accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness of the existing cost estimates are, therefore, questionable. There is a need for a comparative cost analysis of the different approaches to bariatric surgery, with the most appropriate costing approach identified to be micro-costing methods. Such an analysis will not only be useful in estimating the relative cost-effectiveness of different surgeries but will also ensure appropriate reimbursement and budgeting by healthcare payers to ensure barriers to access this effective treatment by severely obese patients are minimised.

Point-of-care diagnostics for niche applications

Point-of-care or point-of-use diagnostics are analytical devices that provide clinically relevant information without the need for a core clinical laboratory. In this review we define point-of-care diagnostics as portable versions of assays performed in a traditional clinical chemistry laboratory. This review discusses five areas relevant to human and animal health where increased attention could produce significant impact: veterinary medicine, space travel, sports medicine, emergency medicine, and operating room efficiency. For each of these areas, clinical need, available commercial products, and ongoing research into new devices are highlighted.

Financial modeling of current surgical robotic system in outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: how should we think about the expense?

INTRODUCTION

More than 500,000 robotically assisted procedures were performed worldwide in 2013. Despite broad adoption, there remains a lack of clarity concerning the added cost of the robotic system to the procedure especially in light of an increasing number of ambulatory procedures which are now marketed by hospitals, surgeons and the manufacturer. These procedures are associated with much less reimbursement than inpatient procedures. It is unclear whether these added expenses can be absorbed in these scenarios. Reports vary in opinion concerning the added net costs during robotically assisted laparoscopic hernia or cholecystectomy.

METHODS

The worldwide revenues, procedures, and the installed base of robotic system data were reviewed and reanalyzed from the 2013 Intuitive Surgical Investors report. This provided an opportunity to look cost per case projections from the vantage point of actual revenue.

RESULTS

This analysis was based on revenue of 2.27 billion US dollars in the three categories of capital acquisition, instrumentation and accessories, and service revenue. These revenues were then spread across 523,000 cases with varying assumptions. Without regard to expense offsets, the additional cost ranges from $2908 to $8675 depending on what system was purchased and the ability to distribute costs against case volume. Estimates of commercial and government revenue were then compared against these expenses.

CONCLUSION

The use of the extraordinary technology in the face of low-morbidity low-cost established minimally invasive procedures needs to withstand scrutiny of outcome assessment, revenue and expense considerations and appropriateness review in order to create financially viable approaches to high-volume minimally invasive procedures. Revenue estimates associated with outpatient reimbursement make it difficult to support these expenses, recognizing inpatient procedures represent a different net financial picture.