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

Outpatient Robotic surgery: Considerations for the Anesthesiologist

A shortage of inpatient beds and nurses during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has lent priority to safe same-day discharge after surgery. The minimally invasive nature of robotic surgery has allowed an increasing number of procedures to be done on an outpatient basis. Anesthetic management should be designed to complement the technical advantages of robotic surgery in facilitating early discharge.

Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Utilization of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (IHR) has increased in recent years, but randomized or prospective studies comparing outcomes and cost of laparoscopic and Robotic-IHR are still lacking. With conflicting results from only five retrospective series available in the literature comparing the two approaches, the question remains whether current robotic technology provides any added benefits to treat inguinal hernias. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of Robotic-IHR versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal IHR (Laparoscopic-IHR).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent Robotic-IHR or Laparoscopic-IHR at a dedicated MIS unit in the USA from February 2015 to June 2017. Demographics, anthropometrics, the proportion of bilateral and recurrent hernias, operative details, cost, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, and rates and severity of complications were compared.

RESULTS

183 patients had surgery: 45 (24.6%) Robotic-IHR and 138 (75.4%) Laparoscopic-IHR. There were no differences between groups in age, gender, BMI, ASA class, the proportion of bilateral hernias and recurrent hernias, and length of stay. Operative time (Robotic-IHR: 116 ± 36 min, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 95±44 min, p < 0.01), reoperations (Robotic-IHR: 6.7%, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01), and readmissions rates were greater for Robotic-IHR. While the overall perioperative complication rate was similar in between groups (Robotic-IHR: 28.9% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 18.1%, p = 0.14), Robotic-IHR was associated with a significantly greater proportion of grades III and IV complications (Robotic-IHR: 6.7% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01). Total hospital cost was significantly higher for the Robotic-IHRs ($9993 vs. $5994, p < 0.01). The added cost associated with the robotic device itself was $3106 per case and the total cost of disposable supplies was comparable between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting in which it was studied, the outcomes of Laparoscopic-IHR were significantly superior to the Robotic-IHR, at lower hospital costs. Laparoscopic-IHR remains the preferred minimally invasive surgical approach to treat inguinal hernias.

[Robotic approach to hepatobiliary surgery. German version]

Robot-assisted hepatobiliary surgery has been steadily growing in recent years. It represents an alternative to the open and laparoscopic approaches in selected patients. Endowristed instruments and enhanced visualization provide important advantages in terms of selective bleeding control, microsuturing, and dissection. Cholecystectomies and minor hepatectomies are being performed with comparable results to open and laparoscopic surgery. Even complex procedures, such as major and extended hepatectomies, can have excellent outcomes, in expert hands. The addition of indocyanine green fluorescence provides an additional advantage for recognition of the vascular and biliary anatomy. Future innovations will allow for expanding its use and indications. Robotic surgery has become a very important component of modern minimally invasive surgery and the development of new robotic technology will facilitate a broader adoption of this technique.

Value-based assessment of robotic pancreas and liver surgery

Current healthcare economic evaluations are based only on the perspective of a single stakeholder to the healthcare delivery process. A true value-based decision incorporates all of the outcomes that could be impacted by a single episode of surgical care. We define the value proposition for robotic surgery using a stakeholder model incorporating the interests of all groups participating in the provision of healthcare services: patients, surgeons, hospitals and payers. One of the developing and expanding fields that could benefit the most from a complete value-based analysis is robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery. While initial robot purchasing costs are high, the benefits over laparoscopic surgery are considerable. Performing a literature search we found a total of 18 economic evaluations for robotic HPB surgery. We found a lack of evaluations that were carried out from a perspective that incorporates all of the impacts of a single episode of surgical care and that included a comprehensive hospital cost assessment. For distal pancreatectomies, the two most thorough examinations came to conflicting results regarding total cost savings compared to laparoscopic approaches. The most thorough pancreaticoduodenectomy evaluation found non-significant savings for total hospital costs. Robotic hepatectomies showed no cost savings over laparoscopic and only modest savings over open techniques. Lastly, robotic cholecystectomies were found to be more expensive than the gold-standard laparoscopic approach. Existing cost accounting data associated with robotic HPB surgery is incomplete and unlikely to reflect the state of this field in the future. Current data combines the learning curves for new surgical procedures being undertaken by HPB surgeons with costs derived from a market dominated by a single supplier of robotic instruments. As a result, the value proposition for stakeholders in this process cannot be defined. In order to solve this problem, future studies must incorporate (I) quality of life, survival, and return to independent function alongside data such as (II) intent-to-treat analysis of minimally-invasive surgery accounting for conversions to open, (III) surgeon and institution experience and operative time as surrogates for the learning curve; and (IV) amortization and maintenance costs as well as direct costs of disposables and instruments.

Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgical systems have been used at a rapidly increasing rate in general surgery. Many of these procedures have been performed laparoscopically for years. In a surgical encounter, a significant portion of the total costs is associated with consumable supplies. Our hospital system has invested in a software program that can track the costs of consumable surgical supplies. We sought to determine the differences in cost of consumables with elective laparoscopic and robotic procedures for our health care organization.

METHODS

De-identified procedural cost and equipment utilization data were collected from the Surgical Profitability Compass Procedure Cost Manager System (The Advisory Board Company, Washington, DC) for our health care system for laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and inguinal hernia between the years 2013 and 2015. Outcomes were length of stay, case duration, and supply cost. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test for continuous variables, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The total cost of consumable surgical supplies was significantly greater for all robotic procedures. Length of stay did not differ for fundoplication or cholecystectomy. Length of stay was greater for robotic inguinal hernia repair. Case duration was similar for cholecystectomy (84.3 robotic and 75.5 min laparoscopic, p = 0.08), but significantly longer for robotic fundoplication (197.2 robotic and 162.1 min laparoscopic, p = 0.01) and inguinal hernia repair (124.0 robotic and 84.4 min laparoscopic, p = ≪0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significantly increased cost of general surgery procedures for our health care system when cases commonly performed laparoscopically are instead performed robotically. Our analysis is limited by the fact that we only included costs associated with consumable surgical supplies. The initial acquisition cost (over $1 million for robotic surgical system), depreciation, and service contract for the robotic and laparoscopic systems were not included in this analysis.