Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service

What defines the "value" of robotic surgery for patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Perspectives from a U.S. Cancer Center

The use of robotic surgery has experienced rapid growth across diverse medical conditions, with a notable emphasis on gastrointestinal cancers. The advanced technologies incorporated into robotic surgery platforms have played a pivotal role in enabling the safe performance of complex procedures, including gastrectomy and pancreatectomy, through a minimally invasive approach. However, there exists a noteworthy gap in high-level evidence demonstrating that robotic surgery for gastric and pancreatic cancers has substantial benefits compared to traditional open or laparoscopic methods. The primary impediment hindering the broader implementation of robotic surgery is its cost. The escalating healthcare expenses in the United States have prompted healthcare providers and payors to explore patient-centered, value-based healthcare models and reimbursement systems that embrace cost-effectiveness. Thus, it is important to determine what defines the value of robotic surgery. It must either maintain or enhance oncological quality and improve complication rates compared to open procedures. Moreover, its true value should be apparent in patients' expedited recovery and improved quality of life. Another essential aspect of robotic surgery's value lies in minimizing or even eliminating opioid use, even after major operations, offering considerable benefits to the broader public health landscape. A quicker return to oncological therapy has the potential to improve overall oncological outcomes, while a speedier return to work not only alleviates individual financial distress but also positively impacts societal productivity. In this article, we comprehensively review and summarize the current landscape of health economics and value-based care, with a focus on robotic surgery for gastrointestinal cancers.

A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures

This study aims to conduct a systematic review of full economic analyses of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in adults' thoracic and abdominopelvic indications. Authors used Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed to conduct a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Fully published economic articles in English were included. Methodology and reporting quality were assessed using standardized tools. Majority of studies (28/33) were on oncology procedures. Radical prostatectomy was the most reported procedure (16/33). Twenty-eight studies used quality-adjusted life years, and five used complication rates as outcomes. Nine used primary and 24 studies used secondary data. All studies used modeling. In 81% of studies (27/33), RAS was cost-effective or potentially cost-effective compared to comparator procedures, including radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. Societal perspective, longer-term time-horizon, and larger volumes favored RAS. Cost-drivers were length of stay and equipment cost. From societal and payer perspectives, robotic-assisted surgery is a cost-effective strategy for thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Clinical trial registration This study is a systematic review with no intervention, not a clinical trial.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Open Radical Hysterectomy Compared to Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of open surgery, compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, using updated survival data. Costs and utilities of each surgical approach were compared using a Markovian decision analysis model. Survival data stratified by surgical approach and surgery costs were received from recently published data. Average costs were discounted at 3%. The value of health benefits for each strategy was calculated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated using the formula (average cost minimal invasive surgery-average cost open surgery)/(average QALY minimal invasive surgery-average QALY open surgery), was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted for all variables. Open radical hysterectomy was found to be cost-saving compared to minimally invasive surgery with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD -66 and USD -373 for laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. The most influential parameters in the model were surgery costs, followed by the disutility involved with open surgery. Until further data are generated regarding the survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery, at current pricing, open radical hysterectomy is cost-saving compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, both laparoscopic and robotic.

Artificial intelligence in orthopaedic surgery

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly growing across many domains, of which the medical field is no exception. AI is an umbrella term defining the practical application of algorithms to generate useful output, without the need of human cognition. Owing to the expanding volume of patient information collected, known as 'big data', AI is showing promise as a useful tool in healthcare research and across all aspects of patient care pathways. Practical applications in orthopaedic surgery include: diagnostics, such as fracture recognition and tumour detection; predictive models of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, such as calculating mortality rates and length of hospital stay; and real-time rehabilitation monitoring and surgical training. However, clinicians should remain cognizant of AI's limitations, as the development of robust reporting and validation frameworks is of paramount importance to prevent avoidable errors and biases. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI and its subfields, as well as to delineate its existing clinical applications in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, this narrative review expands upon the limitations of AI and future direction.

Strategies to improve cost effectiveness of robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in emerging economies

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP) for localized prostate cancer from a healthcare perspective in Colombia. A systematic review was conducted in Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, to identify relevant publications up to January 2020 to summarize clinical outcomes related to effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy. A tree decision model was designed given the clinical outcomes and possibilities of complication and success. Outcomes were defined as complications according to Clavien - Dindo classification and success measured as urethral stricture rate. Cost was divided into two categories: surgical procedure and complications. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and a deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of the uncertainty on the conclusions of the model. A 90-day horizon was defined. Direct medical costs associated with RALRP were $6.511 ($ 5.127- $8.138), and for ORP were $4.476 ($2.170-$ 6.511). The average cost for complication management was rated at $ 327 for RALRP and $ 382 for ORP, based on an augmented risk of post-operative urethral stricture in the ORP group (2.4% vs 10.8%). ICER was calculated in USD $18.987. The cost of RALRP has to be reduced to around USD 5.345 to achieve an ICER under 1 GDP making the intervention feasible. Using a 3 GDP per capita threshold, the implementation of RALRP could be cost-effective for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in emerging economies. Bolder measures including the use of one needle carrier, three robotic arms, and a shorten hospitalization program of 24 h, can save around $1000 for each patient, achieving the goal cost of $5345 needed for a favorable ICER.

Ergonomic Assessment of the Surgeon's Physical Workload During Robot-Assisted Versus Standard Laparoscopy in a French Multicenter Randomized Trial (ROBOGYN-1004 Trial)

BACKGROUND

Standard laparoscopy (SL) is responsible for musculoskeletal disorders in surgeons because of poor ergonomic positions, which could be reduced by robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) owing to the surgeons' seated position. One of the aims of the ROBOGYN-1004 study (NCT01247779) was to evaluate surgeons' workloads during real-time procedures of gynecological oncological surgery.

METHODS

Patients with gynecological cancer eligible for minimally invasive surgery were recruited from 13 French centers between December 2010 and December 2015. Physical workload was evaluated using the Borg scale every hour over the surgery duration and the perception of workload evaluated using NASA-TLX at the end of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 369 patients were recruited, of whom 176 underwent RAL and 193 underwent SL (per-protocol analysis). Posture during SL was significantly more challenging for all body parts except the back. There was an increase in discomfort over time (up to 4 h) for the hands and arms, neck, and legs in SL compared with RAL. Perceived physical activity and abilities were rated higher in SL than in RAL (p < 0.01), whereas perceived personal performance was higher in SL (p < 0.01). Perceived physical effort during surgery was lower in RAL than in SL.

CONCLUSIONS

RAL improves the perception of physical workload. Compared with SL, the perceived effort is lower in RAL regardless of the complexity of the surgery.

Index cost comparison of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery in colon and rectal cancer resection: a retrospective financial investigation of surgical methodology innovation at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted colorectal cancer resection (R-CR) has become increasingly commonplace in contrast to traditional laparoscopic cancer resection (L-CR). The aim of this study was to compare the total direct costs of R-CR to that of L-CR and to compare the groups with respect to costs related to LOS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colon and/or rectal cancer resection via R-CR or L-CR instrumentation between January 1, 2015 and December 31 2018, at our institution, were evaluated and compared. Primary outcomes were overall cost, supply cost, operating time and cost, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and postoperative LOS cost. Secondary outcomes were readmission within 30 days and mortality during the surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty R-CR (mean age 64.9 ± 12.4 years) and 258 L-CR (mean age 66.4 ± 15.5 years) patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean direct cost between R-CR and L-CR was significantly higher ($8756 vs $7776 respectively, p=0.001) as well as the supply cost per case ($3789 vs $2122, p < 0.001). Operating time was also higher for R-CR than L-CR (224 min vs 187 min, p = 0.066) but LOS was slightly lower (5.08 days vs 5.55 days, p = 0.113).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost is the main obstacle to easy and widespread use of the platform at this junction, though new developments and competition could very well reduce costs. Supply cost was the main reason for increased costs with robotic resection.

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

Different surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021246811.

More work is needed on cost-utility analyses of robotic-assisted surgery

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.

METHODS

Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear." Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

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.

Cost-utility analysis on robot-assisted and laparoscopic prostatectomy based on long-term functional outcomes

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is one of the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. However, controversy still exists on its added value. Based on a recent large-sample retrospective cluster study from the Netherlands showing significantly improved long-term urinary functioning after RARP compared to Laparoscopic RP (LRP), we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of RARP compared to LRP. A decision tree was constructed to measure the costs and effects from a Dutch societal perspective over a ~ 7 year time-horizon. The input was based on the aforementioned study, including patient-reported consumption of addition care and consumed care for ergonomic issues reported by surgeons. Intervention costs were calculated using a bottom-up costing analysis in 5 hospitals. Finally, a probabilistic-, one-way sensitivity- and scenario analyses were performed to show possible decision uncertainty. The intervention costs were €9964 for RARP and €7253 for LRP. Total trajectory costs were €12,078 for RARP and €10,049 for LRP. RARP showed higher QALYs compared to LRP (6.17 vs 6.11). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €34,206 per QALY gained, in favour of RARP. As a best-case scenario, when RARP is being centralized (> 150 cases/year), total trajectory costs decreased to €10,377 having a higher utilization, and a shorter procedure time and length of stay resulting in an ICUR of €3495 per QALY gained. RARP showed to be cost-effective compared to LRP based on data from a population-based, large scale study with 7 years of follow-up. This is a clear incentive to fully reimburse RARP, especially when hospitals provide RARP centralized.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer From the Brazilian Public System Perspective

OBJECTIVES

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the gold standard for the surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer, presenting better results than radiotherapy especially for high-risk patients. Although it has clinical and technical benefits compared with open and laparoscopic techniques, the robotic-assisted RP is not publicly funded in Brazil. The objective of this study was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of the robotic-assisted RP from the Brazilian public system perspective.

METHODS

A state transition model was built to simulate the life of a patient undergoing RP. A total of 3 arms were compared: robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgeries. The assumed time horizon was 20 years; discounts were applied to both costs and health outcomes. Events and transition probabilities were obtained in the literature, and costs were obtained in official government databases. The results were reported as incremental cost-utility ratios.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted surgery was found to be costlier but more effective than both open and laparoscopic techniques, resulting in Brazilian reals 4518 per quality-adjusted life-year and Brazilian reals 3631 per quality-adjusted life-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study gives relevant inputs for decision making regarding the inclusion of robotic-assisted RP in the Brazilian public formularies. The study demonstrates that the technology is cost-effective even when considering willingness-to-pay thresholds lower than the traditionally used ones.

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in the UK

IMPORTANCE

The cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy remains a subject of debate. Emergence of recent critical clinical data and changes in surgical equipment costs due to their shared use by different clinical specialties necessitate an updated cost-effectiveness analysis in a centralized, largely government-funded health care system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS).

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LRP) using contemporary data on clinical outcomes, costs, and surgical volumes in the UK.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic analysis used a Markov model developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of RARP, LRP, and ORP to treat localized prostate cancer. The model was constructed from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model simulated 65-year-old men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer and were followed up for a 10-year period. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, LRP, and ORP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (direct medical costs and costs outside the NHS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Compared with LRP, RARP cost £1785 (US $2350) less and had 0.24 more QALYs gained; thus, RARP was a dominant option compared with LRP. Compared with ORP, RARP had 0.12 more QALYs gained but cost £526 (US $693) more during the 10-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of £4293 (US $5653)/QALY. Because the ICER was below the £30 000 (US $39 503) willingness-to-pay threshold, RARP was more cost-effective than ORP in the UK. The most sensitive variable influencing the cost-effectiveness of RARP was the lower risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Scenario analysis indicated RARP would remain more cost-effective than ORP as long as the BCR hazard ratios comparing RARP vs ORP were less than 0.99.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that in the UK, RARP has an ICER lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus is likely a cost-effective surgical treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer compared with ORP and LRP. The results were mainly driven by the lower risk of BCR for RARP. These findings may differ in other health care settings where different thresholds and costs may apply.

Robotic Assisted Repair of Post-Ileal Conduit Parastomal Hernia: Technique and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To describe a novel method of robotic assisted laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair (RAL-PHR), including the evolving use of the Da Vinci Single Port (SP) robotic system.

METHODS

Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were collected for patients who underwent RAL-PHR. The technique for RAL-PHR utilizes a 3 cm incision in the contralateral upper quadrant for the robotic trocar and a 12 mm assistant port. The hernia sac is freed from the fascial defect. Dual Surface Mesh is approximated to the fascial edges with a portion excised to tailor the conduit.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent RAL-PHR and three utilized the SP robot. Median age was 74.4 (range: 69.0-76.9) and median BMI 28.6 (26.5-43.2). All patients underwent cystectomy for bladder cancer and median time from index operation to parastomal hernia repair was 47.3 (40.4-11.48) months. Concurrent operations to hernia repair included ureteroenteric stricture repair, panniculectomy, abdominal wall reconstruction, stoma revision, and incisional hernia repair. Median operative time was 3.9 (2.6-8.7) hours including concurrent operations, median EBL was 50 (10-100) cc, mesh used in 3 cases, with no intraoperative complications reported. Median length of stay was 1 day and 1 post-operative complication greater than Clavien 2 reported. At median follow up of 18.3 (3.63-38.3) months, no recurrences were reported and 1 patient had undergone stoma dilation in the OR.

CONCLUSION

RAL-PHR using the SP system maximizes advantages of laparoscopic repair while allowing for flexibility to perform concurrent procedures and safer takedown of adhesions through just two incisions. RAL-PHR is a safe and effective alternative to open and laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair with several additional benefits.

Comparison of Acute and Chronic Surgical Complications Following Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and Traditional Open Radical Prostatectomy Among Men in Taiwan

IMPORTANCE

Few studies have evaluated long-term surgical complications in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who receive open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

OBJECTIVE

To examine the perioperative and postoperative surgical complications among patients with PC who underwent ORP, LRP, or RARP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients who received a diagnosis of resectable PC and underwent RP between January 1 and December 31, 2015. Participants were enrolled in the Taiwan Cancer Registry. The index date was the date of surgery, and the follow-up duration was the period from the index date to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed in September 2020.

EXPOSURES

ORP, LRP, or RARP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Two multivariate mixed models accounting for hospital clusters were fitted to ascertain the association of RARP with treatment outcomes (ie, hospital stay, blood transfusion, postoperative pain, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and hernia); general linear regression models were used for continuous outcomes, the amount of blood transfused, and hospital stay, and logistic regression models were used for analyzing postoperative outcomes and surgical complications.

RESULTS

Of the 1407 patients included in this study, 315 (22.4%) received ORP (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [6.8] years), 276 (19.6%) received LRP (mean [SD] age, 66.8 [6.4] years), and 816 (58.0%) received RARP (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [6.7] years). Mean (SD) follow-up in the full cohort was 36.7 (4.6) months. No statistically significant differences were observed in age, clinical tumor stage, pathological tumor stage, Gleason score, Gleason grade group, preoperative prostate-specific antigen concentration, D'Amico risk classification, and hospital level. A shorter hospital stay was observed for patients undergoing RARP vs those undergoing ORP (mean [SE] difference, -1.64 [0.22] days; P < .001) and LRP (mean [SE] difference, -0.57 [0.23] days; P = .01). Patients undergoing RARP had lower odds of receiving a blood transfusion (RARP vs ORP: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.17-0.36; RARP vs LRP: aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.91). For postoperative pain, RARP was associated with a decrease in the odds of moderate to severe postoperative pain for as long as 12 weeks compared with both ORP and LRP (eg, RARP vs LRP at week 12: aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.85; P = .02). The aORs for RARP vs those for ORP and LRP in the third year after RP were, for erectile dysfunction, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.45-0.92) and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36-0.98), respectively; for urinary incontinence, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.65-0.99) and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.86), respectively; and for hernia, 0.51 (95% CI, 0.31-0.84) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, undergoing RARP was associated with fewer acute and chronic postoperative complications than undergoing ORP or LRP.

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.

Making a business case in healthcare: the value of careful consideration

A well thought-out business case offers an opportunity for clinicians to bring about evidenced-based change in clinical practice. It is a powerful tool that can have a significant impact on healthcare services and patient outcomes, while also offering desirable solutions to the NHS, which is facing growing healthcare demands on increasingly limited resources. The role of a business case is to justify the need for change, argue its value, gain support from leadership and illustrate how it can be sustainably implemented. This article guides clinicians through the process of producing a successful business case using the five-case model, which can be applied to the majority of improvement projects or services in healthcare settings. Clinicians might use this guide to support the development of a case to make a change in their own workplace or to help them take a full part in wider system changes.

A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Surgical Approaches to Proctectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is increasingly used for proctectomy, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach is uncertain. Robotic surgery is considered more expensive than open or laparoscopic approaches, but in certain situations has been demonstrated to be cost-effective. We examined the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to proctectomy from societal and healthcare system perspectives.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate one-year costs and outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open proctectomy based on data from the available literature. The robustness of our results was tested with one-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Open proctectomy had increased cost and lower quality of life (QOL) compared with laparoscopy and robotic approaches. In the societal perspective, robotic proctectomy costs $497/case more than laparoscopy, with minimal QOL improvements, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $751,056 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). In the healthcare sector perspective, robotic proctectomy resulted in $983/case more and an ICER of $1,485,139/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated factors influencing cost-effectiveness primarily pertained to the operative cost and the postoperative length of stay (LOS). In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the cost-effective approach to proctectomy was laparoscopic in 42% of cases, robotic in 39%, and open in 19% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy cost less and have higher QALY than the open approach. Based on current data, laparoscopy is the most cost-effective approach. Robotic proctectomy can be cost-effective if modest differences in costs or postoperative LOS can be achieved.

Diffusion and adoption of the surgical robot in urology

Over the last two decades, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in hospital systems around the world. Leading this charge has been Intuitive Surgical Inc.’s da Vinci robotic system (Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Through its innovative technology and unique revenue model, Intuitive has installed 4,986 robotic surgical systems worldwide in the last two decades. The rapid rate of adoption and diffusion of the surgical robot has been propelled by many important industry-specific factors. In this review, we propose a model that explains the successful adoption of robotic surgery due to its three core groups: the surgeon, the hospital administrator, and the patient.

Latest Comprehensive Medical Resource Consumption in Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic and Traditional Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated long-term medical monetary cost in patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest and longest follow-up study to examine medical monetary cost in patients with PC undergoing ORP, LRP, or RARP. After adjustment for confounders, the medical monetary cost in the RARP group was the least compared with that in the ORP and LRP groups.

PURPOSE

To estimate long-term medical resource consumption among patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants were men enrolled in the Taiwan Cancer Registry with localized PC diagnosis who received radical prostatectomy. After adjustment for confounders, a generalized linear mixed model was used to determine significant differences in the number of urology outpatient clinic visits required, proportion of patients being hospitalized for urinary diseases or surgical complications, and medical reimbursement for urinary diseases or surgical complications following ORP, LRP, or RARP in the first, second, and third years. Results: No differences were observed in the median number of urology outpatient clinic visits between the three types of surgical modalities up to the second year after ORP, LRP, and RARP (median: 15, 10, and seven visits, respectively; p < 0.001), but significant differences were observed in the third year. Similarly, with RARP (10.9% versus 18.7% in ORP and 9.8% in LRP; p = 0.0014), the rate of hospitalization for urinary diseases or surgical complications decreased in the third year. Medical reimbursement for urinary diseases or surgical complications reduced after RARP compared with that for ORP and LRP, with approximately 22% reduction in the first year (p = 0.0052) and 20-40% reduction in the third year (p value = 0.0024).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical resource consumption in the RARP group was less compared with those in the ORP and LRP groups.

Laparoscopic surgery experience does not influence oncological and functional results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Surgery is one of the treatment alternatives for prostate cancer, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become the new trend in the past decade. There is no consensus yet for surgeons who will perform RALP whether they need to be trained or experienced in laparoscopy. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the surgeon's laparoscopy experience in the perioperative and postoperative results of RALP patients.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Patients who underwent RALP were retrospectively screened. The first 20 cases done by surgeons in both groups and 40 cases in total were included in the study. Surgeons with laparoscopy training were designated as group 1, and surgeons without laparoscopy training were designated as group 2. Patient's age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, prostate biopsy pathology, radical prostatectomy pathology, surgical margin positivity, extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicle invasion status, blood transfusion rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and 1-year follow-up potency and urinary incontinence rates were compared.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two groups in terms of age, preoperative PSA, preoperative biopsy results, blood transfusion rates, operation times, and the length of hospital stay of the patients. When the postoperative oncological and functional results of the patients were examined, there was no difference between the two groups in the prostatectomy pathology (p = 0.895), extracapsular extension (pT3a) (p = 0.519), positive surgical margin (pSM) (p = 0.723), and seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) (p = 0.756). Potency and urinary incontinence rates were similar in both groups at the end of one year follow-up (p = 0.327, 0.500 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our study, it is clearly seen that regardless of the surgeon's experience of laparoscopy, it can be safely preferred when looking at the oncological and functional results of RALP.

Usefulness of articulating laparoscopic instruments during laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma

Purpose

Conventional straight-shaped laparoscopic surgical instruments have limitations that, unlike robotic surgery, the wrist joint cannot be used. This study aimed to analyze the short-term safety and feasibility of ArtiSential (Livsmed), a new articulating laparoscopic instrument, which obviates the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery and allows the wrist joint to be used freely over 360° as in robotic surgery.

Methods

The study included patients who underwent conventional laparoscopy or laparoscopy with the ArtiSential instrument. Patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for primary gastric adenocarcinoma in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The groups were propensity score matched in a 11 ratio. Primary endpoint was incidence of early postoperative complication (postoperative 30-day morbidity and mortality) and secondary endpoints were operative outcomes.

Results

A total of 327 patients (147 of the conventional group and 180 of the ArtiSential group) were propensity score matched. After propensity score matching was performed, each group comprised of 122 patients. Both groups were comparable with regard to operation time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and length of hospital stay. The ArtiSential group had a faster time to a fluid diet (2.6 ± 1.3 days vs. 2.3 ± 0.6 days, p = 0.015). There was no statistically significant difference in early postoperative complications between the two groups (the conventional group, 23.0%; the ArtiSential group, 26.2%; p = 0.656).

Conclusion

The current study showed that the use of ArtiSential is a safe and feasible option without increasing operation time, length of hospital stay, and intraoperative bleeding.

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.

[Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, perioperative management by French urologists in 2018]

INTRODUCTION

Prostatectomy (PT) is a common procedure performed by many urologists. In 2018, 20,207 prostatectomies were performed in France, and few studies evaluated the perioperative habits of urologists. As part of writing guidelines for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) we wished to evaluate practice of urologists in their hospital management of a prostatectomy.

MATERIEL AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent by Survey Monkey in June and July 2018 to all urologists who are members of the French Association of Urology.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty seven urologists (14%) answered the questionnaire, 62% have private practice. The average number of operators per center performing PT was 4, with a median number of 70 interventions (0 to 486) per center in 2018. Open surgery is still gold standard (39.13%), followed by the robot-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic (34.78%) and standard laparoscopic (24.22%). Alimentation, like first stand-up, was re-established on the first post-operative day, and the average hospital stay was 4±2 nights. The removal of the bladder catheter was most often performed at home by nurse (49.06%), one week after surgery. Only 10.06% of urologists systematically perform a cystography before removal urinary catheter.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative management of prostatectomy in France is relatively homogeneous, between urologists. The length of hospital stay remains important and could be reduced by proposing an ERAS protocol as has been obtained for cystectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Outcomes of Gender Affirming Peritoneal Flap Vaginoplasty Using the Da Vinci Single Port Versus Xi Robotic Systems

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted peritoneal flap gender-affirming vaginoplasty (RPGAV) with the da Vinci Xi system has been reported to be a safe alternative to traditional penile inversion vaginoplasty. Utilizing the Single Port (SP) robot system, our surgical approach has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a step-by-step technique for RPGAV using the SP robot and to compare outcomes between Xi and SP systems.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 145 transgender women underwent RPGAV between September 2017 and December 2019. We retrospectively reviewed data for patients with a minimum 6 mo of follow-up.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Peritoneal flaps are harvested from the posterior bladder and pararectal fossa. The vaginal space is dissected transabdominally. Inverted penile flap with or without scrotal graft is sutured to the peritoneal flaps, which form the neovaginal apex.

MEASUREMENTS

Demographics, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 100 (Xi = 47; SP = 53) patients had a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. The mean age was 36.2 (range 16.1-71.4) yr. Average procedure times were 4.2 and 3.7 h in Xi and SP cohorts, respectively (p <0.001). At the mean follow-up of 11.9 (range 6.0-25.4) mo, vaginal depth and width were 13.6 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 2.9-3.8) cm in the Xi group, and 14.1 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 3.5-3.8) cm in the SP group (p =0.07 and 0.04, respectively). Complications included transfusion (6%), rectovaginal fistula (1%), bowel obstruction (2%), pelvic abscess (1%), and vaginal stenosis (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

RPGAV using the SP robot reduces operative time by facilitating a dual-surgeon abdominal-perineal approach. There is no difference in complication rates between the two approaches.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We studied the outcomes of robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty with two robot systems. With both systems, patients had good vaginal depth and width at an average follow-up of 1 yr. Surgery time was shorter with the Single Port (SP) robot.

Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Costs for Robotic Cancer Surgery in US Adults

IMPORTANCE

Expensive technologies-including robotic surgery-experience rapid adoption without evidence of superior outcomes. Although previous studies have examined perioperative outcomes and costs, differences in out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing robotic surgery are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To assess out-of-pocket costs and total payments for 5 types of common oncologic procedures that can be performed using an open or robotic approach.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective, cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted analysis was performed using deidentified insurance claims for 1.9 million enrollees from the MarketScan database from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. The final study sample comprised 15 893 US adults aged 18 to 64 years who were enrolled in an employer-sponsored health plan. Patients underwent either an open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, partial colectomy, radical nephrectomy, or partial nephrectomy for a solid-organ malignant neoplasm. Statistical analysis was performed from December 18, 2018, to June 5, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Type of surgical procedure-robotic vs open.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of interest was out-of-pocket costs associated with robotic and open surgery. The secondary outcome of interest was associated total payments.

RESULTS

Among 15 893 patients (11 102 men; mean [SD] age, 55.4 [6.6] years), 8260 underwent robotic and 7633 underwent open procedures; patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy were older than those undergoing open hysterectomy (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [6.7] vs 54.6 [7.2] years), and patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy had more comorbidities than those undergoing robotic radical nephrectomy (≥2 comorbidities, 658 of 861 [76.4%] vs 244 of 347 [70.3%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all procedures: -$137.75 (95% CI, -$240.24 to -$38.63) for radical prostatectomy (P = .006); -$640.63 (95% CI, -$933.62 to -$368.79) for hysterectomy (P < .001); -$1140.54 (95% CI, -$1397.79 to -$896.54) for partial colectomy (P < .001); -$728.32 (95% CI, -$1126.90 to -$366.08) for radical nephrectomy (P < .001); and -$302.74 (95% CI, -$523.14 to -$97.10) for partial nephrectomy (P = .003). The robotic approach was similarly associated with lower adjusted total payments: -$3872.62 (95% CI, -$5385.49 to -$2399.04) for radical prostatectomy (P < .001); -$29 640.69 (95% CI, -$36 243.82 to -$23 465.94) for hysterectomy (P < .001); -$38 151.74 (95% CI, -$46 386.16 to -$30 346.22) for partial colectomy; (P < .001); -$33 394.15 (95% CI, -$42 603.03 to -$24 955.20) for radical nephrectomy (P < .001); and -$9162.52 (95% CI, -$12 728.33 to -$5781.99) for partial nephrectomy (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found significant variation in perioperative costs according to surgical technique for both patients (out-of-pocket costs) and payers (total payments); the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all studied oncologic procedures.

Multi-DOF (Degree of Freedom) Articulating Laparoscopic Instrument is an Effective Device in Performing Challenging Sutures

Purpose

Although laparoscopic surgery had been performed in clinical practice for over 30 years, there has not been much improvement on instruments. Several articulating laparoscopic instruments have been developed including the robotic system. A new multi-degree of freedom (DOF) articulating laparoscopic device has been developed. We compared the ability to perform challenging sutures between the new device and the robotic system.

Methods

Five experienced surgeons with over 100 laparoscopic surgery cases performed the suture task with both instruments. Everyone was new at articulating instruments including a robotic system. The suturing task consisted of two vertical sutures, downward and upward vertical direction. The duration of needle grabbing, first surgical tie, square tie, and the final reverse tie was measured.

Results

When doing the downward suture, the median time to complete the suture was 127 vs. 136 seconds for ArtiSential^® and the robot, respectively (p=0.754). Other measurements such as needle grabbing, first tie, second tie and final knot did not show any significant difference between the two instruments. Upward suture also did not show a significant difference. The total completion time was 127 vs. 112 seconds for for ArtiSential^® and the robot, respectively (p=0.675). Time taken in each interval did not show any significant difference.

Conclusion

Both instruments performed the suturing tasks with no difference in duration. ArtiSential^® can be mixed up with usual instruments. Surgeons can choose any device, but when articulation is needed, ArtiSential^® could be an alternative choice to the robotic system.

Development of a Patient-Based Model for Estimating Operative Times for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

To develop a methodology for predicting operative times for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using preoperative patient, disease, procedural, and surgeon variables to facilitate operating room (OR) scheduling.

METHODS

The model included preoperative metrics: body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists score, clinical stage, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk, prostate weight, nerve-sparing status, extent and laterality of lymph node dissection, and operating surgeon (six surgeons were included in the study). A binary decision tree was fit using a conditional inference tree method to predict operative times. The variables most associated with operative time were determined using permutation tests. Data were split at the value of the variable that results in the largest difference in mean for surgical time across the split. This process was repeated recursively on the resultant data.

RESULTS

A total of 1709 RARPs were included. The variable most strongly associated with operative time was the surgeon (surgeons 2 and 4-102 minutes shorter than surgeons 1, 3, 5, and 6, p < 0.001). Among surgeons 2 and 4, BMI had the strongest association with surgical time (p < 0.001). Among patients operated by surgeons 1, 3, 5, and 6, RARP time was again most strongly associated with the surgeon performing RARP. Surgeons 1, 3, and 6 were on average 76 minutes faster than surgeon 5 (p < 0.001). The regression tree output in the form of box plots showed operative time median and ranges according to patient, disease, procedural, and surgeon metrics.

CONCLUSION

We developed a methodology that can predict operative times for RARP based on patient, disease and surgeon variables. This methodology can be utilized for quality control, facilitate OR scheduling, and maximize OR efficiency.

Single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci® SP platform

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and feasibility of the da Vinci^® SP (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) robotic platform for a consecutive series of patients who underwent single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (SP-RALP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 10 consecutive patients with biopsy confirmed prostate cancer underwent SP-RALP at our institution. Pre-, peri-, and postoperative data were prospectively collected for key outcomes including: estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, postoperative pain requirements, duration of hospital stay, and complications.

RESULTS

The patients were aged 52-77 years with a body mass index of 24.4-36.7 kg/m² . Prostate volumes ranged from 26 to 136 mL, with a mean (sd) PSA (prostate specific antigen) level of 11.0 (10.6) ng/mL. Lymph node dissection was performed in four patients and nerve sparing in five. No intraoperative complications occurred, and no patients required conversion to an open approach. Total EBL was 20-150 mL, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) console time of 189 (171-207) min and operative time of 234 (216-247) min. No patients were readmitted or required intervention. Urethral catheters were removed at a median (IQR) of 10 (8-11) days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

SP-RALP appears to be a safe and feasible approach to performing robotic radical prostatectomy. Long-term follow-up will be necessary to assess initial oncological and functional results.

Robotic surgery using Senhance® robotic platform: single center experience with first 100 cases

Until recently, robotic surgery has been associated only with the da Vinci robotic system. A novel Senhance^® robotic system (TransEnterix Surgical Inc., Morrisville, NC, USA) was introduced almost 5 years ago. Published reports on experience using this robotic platform are very limited. We present a prospective analysis of the first 100 robotic surgeries in abdominal surgery, gynecology, and urology in Klaipeda University Hospital, Klaipeda, Lithuania. Out of 100 operated patients during the mentioned period, 49 were female and 51 men, age range 27-79 years, on an average 55 years. 39 underwent robotic abdominal surgical procedures, 31-urological, and 30 gynecological surgeries. Duration of surgery varied from 30 min to 6 h and 5 min, on an average 2 h 25 min. Almost half 49 (49%) were operated on for malignant diseases: prostate cancer-27, renal cell carcinoma-1, endometrial cancer-7, ovarian cancer-1, colorectal cancer-13 (7 colon and 6 rectum). In-hospital stay was on an average 4 days, range 1-15 days. There were 3 (3%) conversions: two to laparoscopy (both undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy) and one to open (undergoing total hysterectomy). 6 (6%) complications occurred during 30 postoperative days, 2 demanding surgery. According to the Clavien-Dido classification, they were grade II in 3, grade III a in 1 and grade III b in 2 cases. There was no mortality in this patient population. Our experience with different types of robotic surgeries allows us to state that the Senhance^® robotic system is feasible and safe in general surgery, gynecology, and urology, and wider implementation of this system worldwide is simply a question of time.

‘Robosurgeons vs. robosceptics’: can we afford robotic technology or can we afford not to?

Aim:

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robotic technology in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in comparison with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy.

Methods:

Cochrane, Medline and Embase databases were searched for randomised controlled trials to date on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy to assess clinical effectiveness. The British Association of Urology Surgeons database (2014–2016) and Cancer Research UK (2012–2014) were accessed in conjunction with media; keywords included: ‘Da Vinci’, ‘first robotic prostatectomy’, ‘hospital’ to estimate the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in the National Health Service.

Results:

Functional outcome rates improved with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; this benefits the National Health Service financially although the clinical effectiveness may not meet the threshold of clinical importance. Regarding cost-effectiveness, approximately 12/43 (27.9%) centres achieved 150 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year while 26/43 (60.4%) centres have managed to meet 100 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year in 2014–2016. A national mean of 120–130 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year for 2014–2016 was estimated.

Conclusion:

The cost of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is adequately justified if a high volume of surgeries (>150) are performed in high volume centres by high volume experienced surgeons per year. This can be achieved by subsidising the cost of robotic technology, centralisation and establishing robotic training centres.

Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis

No consensus has been attained regarding the utility of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We carried out a network meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis comparing RRP, LRP and RALRP on peri-operative and functional outcome measures. Electronic databases were searched for either randomized clinical trials or cohort studies comparing RALRP either with LRP or RRP in patients with localized PCa. Outcome measures were as follows: overall, pT2 and pT3-positive surgical margins (PSMs); biochemical recurrence (BCR); complication rates; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion rate; continence and potency rates; duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Publication bias, risk of bias and inconsistency were assessed. Inverse heterogeneity model was used for analysis. A total of 45 studies were included for the final analysis. We observed that RALRP and LRP did not differ significantly from RRP with regard to the following outcomes: overall PSM; pT2 and pT3 PSMs; OT; complication rate; continence and potency rates; total blood loss and hospital stay. Duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in RALRP than LRP and RRP while significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion and BCR were observed for both RALRP and LRP in comparison with RRP. To conclude, similar functional, operative and oncologic outcomes were observed for both RALRP and LRP compared to RRP.

[A single-team experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in 1010 cases]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) based on the single-team experience with 1010 cases.

METHODS

The clinical data of 1010 cases of RPS performed by a single team from November, 2011 to September, 2017 in our hospital were collected prospectively and analyzed. In most of cases the surgeries were performed using the third-generation da Vinci robotic surgical system.

RESULTS

The 1010 cases receiving RPS included 417 cases of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD), 428 cases of robotic distal pancreatectomy, 60 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy, 53 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, 3 cases of Appleby procedure, and 49 cases of other operations (including 4 cases of innovative robotic retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery, 4 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation combined with main pancreatic duct bridging repair, 1 case of single incision robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, and 2 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy combined with end-to-end anastomosis reconstruction). The median operative time was 210 min (30-720 min) with a median intraoperative blood loss of 80 mL (10-2000 mL), a conversion rate of 4.06% (41/1010), a blood transfusion rate of 6.7% (68/1010), a mean post-operative stay of 10.87∓6.70 days, a complication rate (beyond grade III according to Clavien-Dindo scoring system) of 8.0% (81/1010), and a pancreatic fistula rate (beyond) grade B of 9.21% (93/1010). The mortality rate of the patients was 0.69% (7/1010) in 30 days and 1.31% (12//934) in 90 days. The application of RPS in total pancreatectomy increased steadily from the rate of 10.44% in 2012 to 72.06% in 2017.

CONCLUSION

This represents to our knowledge the world largest series of robotic pancreatic resections. RPS is expected to gradually replace open procedure and laparoscopic procedure to become the primary choice of approach for pancreatectomy. After the learning curve, RPS procedure including distal pancreatectomy, robotic Appleby procedure and other operations can be safely performed, and the experiences from other centers can be beneficial to reduce severe complications in the early stage of learning.

Prostate cancer as a paradigm of multidisciplinary approach? Highlights from the Italian young radiation oncologist meeting

Aims and background

The diagnostic and therapeutic approach to prostate cancer has evolved rapidly in last decades. Young professionals need an update about these recent developments in order to improve the care of patients treated in their daily clinical practice.

Methods

On May 18, 2013, AIRO Giovani (the young section of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology) organized a multidisciplinary meeting involving, as speakers, several young physicians from many parts of Italy actively involved in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to prostate cancer. The meeting was specifically addressed to young physicians (radio-oncologists, urologists, medical oncologists) and presented the state-of-the-art of the diagnostic/therapeutic approach based on the latest evidence on the issue. Highlights of the congress are summarized and presented in this report.

Results

The large participation in the meeting (more than 120 participants were present) confirmed the interest of young radiation oncologists in improving their skills in prostate cancer management. The contributions of the speakers confirmed the need for regular updates, considering the promising results of recently published studies and the many new ongoing trials, on the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Multidisciplinary meetings are helpful to improve the skills of young professionals.

Challenges in the Analysis of Outcomes for Surgical Compared to Radiotherapy Treatment of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

Prostate cancer can be treated with radical prostatectomy (RP), external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), or brachytherapy (BT). These modalities have similar cancer-related outcomes. We used an innovative method to analyze the cost of such treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried our Institution's Insurance Division [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Health Plan] beneficiaries from 2003-2008, who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and also queried the UPMC tumor registry for all patients with prostate cancer treated at our Institution. In a de-identified manner, data from the Health Plan and Tumor Registry were merged.

RESULTS

A total of 354 patients with non-metastatic disease with treatment initiated within 9 months of diagnosis were included (RP=236, EBRT=55, and BT=63). Radiotherapy-treated patients tended to be older, higher-risk, and have more comorbidities. Unadjusted median total health care expenditures during the first year after diagnosis were: RP: $16,743, EBRT: $47,256, and BT: $23,237 (p<0.0005). A propensity score-matched model comparing RP and EBRT demonstrated median total health care expenditures during year one: RP: $8,189, EBRT: $10,081; p=0.48. In a propensity-matched model comparing RP and BT, the median total health care expenditures during year one were: RP: $18,143, BT: $26,531; p=0.015 and per year during years 2 through 5 from diagnosis were: RP: $5,913, BT: $6,110; p=0.68.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of combining healthcare costs from the payer's perspective with clinical data from a Tumor Registry within an IDFS and represents a novel approach to investigating the economic impact of cancer treatment.

Robot-assisted surgery in a broader healthcare perspective: a difference-in-difference-based cost analysis of a national prostatectomy cohort

OBJECTIVE

To estimate costs attributable to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) as compared with open prostatectomy (OP) and laparoscopic prostatectomies (LP) in a National Health Service perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Register-based cohort study of 4309 consecutive patients who underwent prostatectomy from 2006 to 2013 (2241 RALP, 1818 OP and 250 LP). Patients were followed from 12 months before to 12 months after prostatectomy with respect to service use in primary care (general practitioners, therapists, specialists etc) and hospitals (inpatient and outpatient activity related to prostatectomy and comorbidity). Tariffs of the activity-based remuneration system for primary care and the Diagnosis-Related Grouping case-mix system for hospital-based care were used to value service use. Costs attributable to RALP were estimated using a difference-in-difference analytical approach and adjusted for patient-level and hospital-level risk selection using multilevel regression.

RESULTS

No significant effect of RALP on resource-use was observed except for a marginally lower use of primary care and fewer bed days as compared with OP (not LP). The overall cost consequence of RALP was estimated at an additional €2459 (95% CI 1377 to 3540, p=0.003) as compared with OP and an additional €3860 (95% CI 559 to 7160, p=0.031) as compared with LP, mainly due to higher cost intensity during the index admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study from the Danish context, the use of RALP generates a factor 1.3 additional cost when compared with OP and a factor 1.6 additional cost when compared with LP, on average, based on 12 months follow-up. The policy interpretation is that the use of robots for prostatectomy should be driven by clinical superiority and that formal effectiveness analysis is required to determine whether the current and eventual new purchasing of robot capacity is best used for prostatectomy.

A Novel Intuitively Controlled Articulating Instrument for Reoperative Foregut Surgery: A Case Report

The field of laparoscopic surgery has continued to grow exponentially over the years, prompting new innovative technologies. Despite substantial advancements, standard laparoscopic tools have undergone little design changes and fail to optimize mobility in limited spaces. Advancements in robotics have attempted to address this, allowing for increasing degrees of freedom and articulation of instruments. Even so, this system has proven to be cumbersome with questionable cost-effectiveness. In this study, we present the first use of a solely mechanical intuitively controlled articulating laparoscopic needle driver. The ability to naturally articulate allowed for ease during suturing and knot tying during the critical portions of the operation. The FlexDex surgical instrument demonstrates promise in the field of foregut surgery in addition to other areas of minimally invasive specialties.

Instrument flight to the inner ear

Surgical robot systems can work beyond the limits of human perception, dexterity and scale making them inherently suitable for use in microsurgical procedures. However, despite extensive research, image-guided robotics applications for microsurgery have seen limited introduction into clinical care to date. Among others, challenges are geometric scale and haptic resolution at which the surgeon cannot sufficiently control a device outside the range of human faculties. Mechanisms are required to ascertain redundant control on process variables that ensure safety of the device, much like instrument-flight in avionics. Cochlear implantation surgery is a microsurgical procedure, in which specific tasks are at sub-millimetric scale and exceed reliable visuo-tactile feedback. Cochlear implantation is subject to intra- and inter-operative variations, leading to potentially inconsistent clinical and audiological outcomes for patients. The concept of robotic cochlear implantation aims to increase consistency of surgical outcomes such as preservation of residual hearing and reduce invasiveness of the procedure. We report successful image-guided, robotic CI in human. The robotic treatment model encompasses: computer-assisted surgery planning, precision stereotactic image-guidance, in-situ assessment of tissue properties and multipolar neuromonitoring (NM), all based on in vitro, in vivo and pilot data. The model is expandable to integrate additional robotic functionalities such as cochlear access and electrode insertion. Our results demonstrate the feasibility and possibilities of using robotic technology for microsurgery on the lateral skull base. It has the potential for benefit in other microsurgical domains for which there is no task-oriented, robotic technology available at present.

Economic evaluation of treatments for patients with localized prostate cancer in Europe: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to assess the efficiency of treatments in patients with localized prostate cancer, by synthesizing available evidence from European economic evaluations through systematic review.

METHODS

Articles published 2000-2015 were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED (Prospero protocol CRD42015022063). Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. We included European economic evaluations or cost comparison studies, of any modality of surgery or radiotherapy treatments, regardless the comparator/s. Drummond's Checklist was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

After reviewing 8,789 titles, 13 European eligible studies were included: eight cost-utility, two cost-effectiveness, one cost-minimization, and two cost-comparison analyses. Of them, five compared interventions with expectant management, four contrasted robotic with non robotic-assisted surgery, three assessed new modalities of radiotherapy, and three compared radical prostatectomy with brachytherapy. All but two studies scored ≥8 in the quality checklist. Considering scenario and comparator, three interventions were qualified as dominant strategies (active surveillance, robotic-assisted surgery and IMRT), and six were cost-effective (radical prostatectomy, robotic-assisted surgery, IMRT, proton therapy, brachytherapy, and 3DCRT). However, QALY gains in most of them were small. For interventions considered as dominant strategies, QALY gain was 0.013 for active surveillance over radical prostatectomy; and 0.007 for robotic-assisted over non-robotic techniques. The highest QALY gains were 0.57-0.86 for radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting, and 0.72 for brachytherapy vs conventional radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, relevant treatment alternatives for localized prostate cancer are scarcely evaluated in Europe. Very limited available evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy over watchful waiting, brachytherapy over radical prostatectomy, and new treatment modalities over traditional procedures. Relevant disparities were detected among studies, mainly based on effectiveness. These apparently contradictory results may be reflecting the difficulty of interpreting small differences between treatments regarding QALY gains.

Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires

BACKGROUND

The introduction of robotic technology has revolutionized radical prostatectomy surgery. However, the potential benefits of robotic techniques may have trade-offs in increased mental demand for the surgeon and the physical demand for the assisting surgeon. This study employed an innovative motion tracking tool along with validated workload questionnaire to assess the ergonomics and workload for both assisting and console surgeons intraoperatively.

METHODS

Fifteen RARP cases were collected in this study. Cases were performed by 10 different participants, six primarily performed console tasks and four primarily performed assisting tasks. Participants had a median 12 (min-3, max-25) years of surgical experience. Both console and assisting surgeons performed robotic prostatectomy cases while wearing inertial measurement units (IMUs) that continuously track neck, shoulder, and torso motion without interfering with the sterile environment. Postoperatively, participants completed a workload questionnaire (SURG-TLX) and a body part discomfort questionnaire.

RESULTS

Twenty-six questionnaires were completed from 13 assisting and 13 console surgeons over the 15 cases. Postoperative pain was reported highest for the right shoulder and neck. Mental demands were 41 % higher for surgeons at the console than assisting (p < 0.05), while physical demands were not significantly different. Assisting surgeons worked in demanding neck postures for 58 % of the procedure compared to 24 % for the console surgeon (p < 0.01). Surgeons at the console were primarily static and showed 2-5 times fewer movements than assisting surgeons (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Postures were more ergonomic during console tasks than when assisting by the bedside; however, the console may constrain postures leading to static loads that have been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms for the neck, torso, and shoulders. The IMU sensors were effective at quantifying ergonomics in robotic prostatectomies, and these methods and findings have broad applications to other robotic procedures.