Surgical outcomes and cost analysis of a multi-specialty robotic-assisted surgery caseload in the Australian public health system

Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is growing rapidly. However, economic evaluation of this technology is challenging. This study aims to identify and discuss the different economic evaluation methods which have been used to evaluate RAS.

METHOD

This scoping review systematically searched PubMed and Embase from 2015 to 2023. We included economic evaluation studies comparing RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to aid data extraction and was extended to cover additional features relevant to RAS, including learning curve, organisational impact, incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

RESULTS

A total of 50 economic evaluations of RAS were included. Cost-utility analysis (46%) was the most commonly applied economic evaluation method, followed by cost-consequence analysis (32%). The studies focused on the specialties of urology (42%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (20%), colorectal (14%) and gynaecology (6%). Distinctive features related to the assessment of RAS were under-addressed in economic evaluations. Only 40% of the included studies considered learning curve and organisational impact and less than 12% of the included studies reflected on incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that some studies have incorporated challenges specific to RAS in their evaluations. However, most studies still lack key aspects of importance. In particular, studies rarely considered the ability of RAS platforms to be shared across multiple specialities. Incorporating these distinctive features offers an opportunity for economic evaluation to provide decision-makers with a more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this technology and to ensure its optimal utilisation in clinical practice.

Cost Analysis of Pelvic Exenteration Surgery for Advanced Pelvic Malignancy

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical procedure involving multi-visceral resection for locally advanced pelvic malignancies. Such radical surgery is associated with prolonged operating theater time and hospital stay, as well as a substantial risk of postoperative complications, and therefore significant financial cost. This study aimed to comprehensively detail the inpatient cost of PE at a specialist center in the Australian public sector.

METHODS

A retrospective costing review of consecutive PE operations at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney between March 2014 and June 2022 was performed. Clinical data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database, and in-hospital costing data were provided by the hospital Performance Unit. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS.

RESULTS

Pelvic exenteration was performed for 461 patients, of whom 283 (61 %) had primary or recurrent rectal cancer, 160 (35 %) had primary or recurrent non-rectal cancer, and 18 (4 %) had a benign indication. The median admission cost was $108,259.4 ($86,620.8-$144,429.3) (Australian dollars [AUD]), with the highest costs for staffing followed by the operating room. Overall, admission costs were higher for complete PE (p < 0.001), PE combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) (p < 0.001), and older patients (p = 0.006).

DISCUSSION

The total admission cost for patients undergoing PE reflects the complexity of the procedure and the multidisciplinary requirement. Patients of advanced age undergoing complete PE and PE combined with CRS incurred greater costs, but the requirement of a sacrectomy, vertical rectus abdominal flap reconstruction, major nerve or vascular excision, or repair were not associated with higher overall cost in the multivariate analysis.

Safety and efficacy of the MP1000 surgical system in robot-assisted radical cystectomy: A prospective study

Background

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has become widely adopted due to its numerous advantages, with the da Vinci robotic surgical system being the most commonly used across the globe. However, the high cost limits its broader application.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of performing RARC using the more economical MP1000 surgical system.

Methods

In this prospective, single-center, single-blind study, 21 patients scheduled for RARC between April and June 2024 were randomly assigned to undergo surgery with either the da Vinci Si system or the MP1000 system. The primary outcome was the rate of conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery. Secondary outcomes included robotic arm installation time, total surgery duration, intraoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative positive margin rate, length of post-operative hospital stay, and short-term post-operative complications.

Results

All surgeries were successfully completed without conversion to open or laparoscopic procedures, and no intraoperative complications related to robotic mechanical failure were observed. The robotic arm installation time was slightly longer with the MP1000 system compared to the da Vinci Si system (20.75 vs. 17.13 min, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in surgery duration, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative positive margin rate, post-operative hospital stay, or short-term post-operative complications. In addition, there was no significant difference in National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index scores, a measure of the operator workload. The primary limitation of this study was its small sample size.

Conclusion

The study demonstrated that the MP1000 surgical system was a safe, feasible, and effective alternative for RARC, and achieved comparable outcomes to the da Vinci Si system.

Efficacy and Safety of Robotic Surgery vs. Open Surgery for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Comprehensive Review

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma, a rare and aggressive bile duct malignancy, presents significant challenges in surgical management. Traditionally treated with open surgery, the emergence of robotic surgery has introduced a new dimension to surgical approaches for this condition. This review aims to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of robotic surgery versus open surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature, including clinical studies, case series, and comparative analyses of robotic and open surgical techniques. Data on oncological outcomes, functional recovery, survival rates, complications, and cost-effectiveness were extracted and analyzed to provide a detailed comparison of the two surgical approaches. Robotic surgery offers several potential advantages over open surgery, including reduced intraoperative blood loss, smaller incisions, and shorter recovery times. However, it requires specialized training and has a higher initial cost. Open surgery, while more established and broadly practiced, remains associated with longer recovery periods and higher complication rates. Oncological outcomes, such as R0 resection rates and survival, appear comparable between the two approaches, though robotic surgery may offer improvements in functional recovery and postoperative quality of life. Both robotic and open surgery have their merits in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Robotic surgery presents promising benefits in terms of reduced invasiveness and improved recovery, while open surgery continues to be a reliable and well-established option. The choice of surgical approach should be guided by patient-specific factors, surgeon expertise, and institutional resources. Further research is needed to refine surgical techniques and establish long-term outcomes, which will aid in optimizing treatment strategies for this challenging malignancy.

Evaluating the utility of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with invasive breast cancer: a systematic review

Robot-assisted axillary lymph node dissection (RALND) has been proposed to improve surgical and oncological outcomes for patients with breast cancer. To perform a systematic review of current literature evaluating RALND in patients with invasive breast cancer. A systematic search was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies outlining outcomes following RALND were included. Two studies involving 92 patients were included in this review. Of these, 41 underwent RALND using the da Vinci© robotic system (44.57%), and 51 underwent conventional axillary lymph node dissection (CALND) (55.43%). There was no significant difference observed with respect to intra-operative blood loss or duration of procedure in those undergoing CALND and RALND (P > 0.050). One study reported a significant difference in lymphoedema rates in support of RALND (6.67% vs 26.67%, P = 0.038). Overall, data in relation to postoperative fat necrosis (10.00% vs 33.33%, P = 0.028), wound infection rates (3.33% vs. 20.00%, P = 0.044), and wound ≤ 40 mm in length (63.63% vs. 19.05%, P = 0.020) supported RALND. Oncological outcomes were only reported in one of the studies, which concluded that there was no local or metastatic recurrence in either group at 3-month follow-up. These provisional results support RALND as a safe alternative to CALND. Notwithstanding, the paucity of data limits the robustness of conclusions which may be drawn surrounding the adoption of RALND as the standard of care. Further high-quality studies are required to ratify these findings.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Traditional Full-Sternotomy Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Procedures: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Hospital Costs

We aim to compare hospital costs of robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus conventional CABG. All consecutive 1,173 patients who underwent conventional and robotic-assisted CABG between January 2018 and June 2021 were included. After propensity-matching, 267 patients in each group (robotic-assisted vs conventional) were included in the study. Patient selection for each group was decided by a treating surgeon with a heart team based on clinical factors. Syntax score was not assessed. Total costs (direct + indirect hospital costs) of patients who underwent robotic-assisted and conventional CABG were compared. Direct cost expenses included surgical operating time, hospital stay, surgical implants and supplies, catheterization laboratory, pharmacy, radiology and ultrasound imaging, blood bank, cardiology, and so on. Indirect cost expenses included general administration medical records, and so on. Using the propensity-matched groups (n = 267), we summed the total cost by year. Results for 267 propensity-matched patients (each group) evidenced that total conventional CABG costs were $9.5 million (average of $35,580/patient), whereas robotic-assisted CABG costs were $5 million ($18,726/patient). Therefore, the differences between robotic-assisted and conventional CABG costs were $4.5 million ($16,853/patient), favoring robotic-assisted over conventional CABG. Differences in direct and indirect costs were $2.2 million and $1.8 million, respectively. When the cost of the Da Vinci robot was added ($1,200,000), the total cost was $3.3 million ($12,359 × patient) lower in the robotic-assisted CABG group. Multivariate analysis showed that, mainly, the shorter hospital length of stay (7 vs 5 days) accounts for the reduced costs observed in the robotic-assisted CABG group. In conclusion, in a mature practice, robotic-assisted CABG decreases hospital length of stay, leading to reduced hospital costs compared with conventional CABG.