When the Evidence Basis Breeds Controversies: Exploring the Value Profile of Robotic Surgery Beyond the Early Introduction Phase

Theory and evidence-base for a digital platform for the delivery of language tests during awake craniotomy and collaborative brain mapping

Objectives

Build the theoretical and evidence-base for a digital platform (map-OR) which delivers intraoperative language tests during awake craniotomy and facilitates collaborative sharing of brain mapping data.

Design

Mixed methodology study including two scoping reviews, international survey, synthesis of development guiding principles and a risk assessment using failure modes and effects analysis.

Setting

The two scoping reviews examined the literature published in the English language. International survey was completed by members of awake craniotomy teams from 14 countries.

Main outcome measures

Scoping review 1: number of technologies described for language mapping during awake craniotomy. Scoping review 2: barriers and facilitators to adopting novel technology in surgery. International survey: degree of language mapping technology penetration into clinical practice.

Results

A total of 12 research articles describing 6 technologies were included. The technologies required a range of hardware components including portable devices, virtual reality headsets and large integrated multiscreen stacks. The facilitators and barriers of technology adoption in surgery were extracted from 11 studies and mapped onto the 4 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology constructs. A total of 37 awake craniotomy teams from 14 countries completed the survey. Of the responses, 20 (54.1%) delivered their language tests digitally, 10 (27.0%) delivered tests using cards and 7 (18.9%) used a combination of both. The most commonly used devices were tablet computers (67.7%; n=21) and the most common software used was Microsoft PowerPoint (60.6%; n=20). Four key risks for the proposed digital platform were identified, the highest risk being a software and internet connectivity failure during surgery.

Conclusions

This work represents a rigorous and structured approach to the development of a digital platform for standardized intraoperative language testing during awake craniotomy and for collaborative sharing of brain mapping data.

Trial registration number

Scoping review protocol registrations in OSF registries (scoping review 1: osf.io/su9xm; scoping review 2: osf.io/x4wsc).

Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

In surgical advancements, robot-assisted surgery (RAS) holds several promises like shorter hospital stays, reduced complications, and improved technical capabilities over standard care. Despite extensive evidence, the actual patient benefits of RAS remain unclear. Thus, our systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in visceral and thoracic surgery compared to laparoscopic or open surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in two databases (Medline via Ovid and The Cochrane Library) in April 2023. The search was restricted to 14 predefined thoracic and visceral procedures and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Synthesis of data on critical outcomes followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool Version 1.

RESULTS

For five out of 14 procedures, no evidence could be identified. A total of 20 RCTs and five follow-up publications met the inclusion criteria. Overall, most studies had either not reported or measured patient-relevant endpoints. The majority of outcomes showed comparable results between study groups. However, RAS demonstrated potential advantages in specific endpoints (e.g., blood loss), yet these findings relied on a limited number of low-quality studies. Statistically significant RAS benefits were also noted in some outcomes for certain indications-recurrence, quality of life, transfusions, and hospitalisation. Safety outcomes were improved for patients undergoing robot-assisted gastrectomy, as well as rectal and liver resection. Regarding operation time, results were contradicting.

CONCLUSION

In summary, conclusive assertions on RAS superiority are impeded by inconsistent and insufficient low-quality evidence across various outcomes and procedures. While RAS may offer potential advantages in some surgical areas, healthcare decisions should also take into account the limited quality of evidence, financial implications, and environmental factors. Furthermore, considerations should extend to the ergonomic aspects for maintaining a healthy surgical environment.

Innovators' views on involving users and patients in surgical device development: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

Involving end-users and patients in the development of surgical devices, even when patients are not end-users, is deemed important in policy and in academia since it could improve strategic choices in research and development (R&D). Nonetheless, research into innovators' views on end-user and patient involvement is rare. This study explores what end-users and patients are being involved by innovators during development, what methods for involvement are being used and what topics are being discussed with these end-users and patients.

DESIGN

A qualitative study featuring semi-structured interviews with innovators of surgical devices. Interviews were recorded and a thematic analysis was performed on verbatim transcripts.

PARTICIPANTS

15 interviews were conducted with 19 innovators of 14 surgical devices.

SETTING

Innovation practices of surgical devices in the Netherlands and Belgium.

RESULTS

End-users were engaged in R&D with formal methods and in unsystematic ways. These users all work in the clinical domain, for example, as surgeons or nurses. The innovators engaged users to analyse problems for which a device could be a solution, define functionalities, make design choices, analyse usability, ensure safety and improve aesthetics. Patients were rarely involved. Innovators stated that patients are not considered to be end-users, that physicians can represent patient interests and that involving patients is unethical as false expectations could be raised.

CONCLUSION

Innovators involve end-users with methods and unsystematic ways in the development of surgical devices. Despite governmental calls for patient involvement in the development of medical devices and surgical devices, innovators do not generally involve patients.

Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Multicentre Comparative Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND

Open radical cystectomy (ORC) is regarded as the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, but robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly used in practice. A recent study showed that RARC resulted in slightly fewer minor but slightly more major complications, although the difference was not statistically significant. Some differences were found in secondary outcomes favouring either RARC or ORC. RARC use is expected to increase in coming years, which fuels the debate about whether RARC provides value for money.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of RARC compared to ORC in bladder cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation was performed alongside a prospective multicentre comparative effectiveness study. We included 348 bladder cancer patients (ORC, n = 168; RARC, n = 180) from 19 Dutch hospitals.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Over 1 yr, we assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from both healthcare and societal perspectives. We used single imputation nested in the bootstrap percentile method to assess missing data and uncertainty, and inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for potential bias. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of various parameters on the cost difference.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The mean healthcare cost per patient was €17 141 (95% confidence interval [CI] €15 791-€18 720) for ORC and €21 266 (95% CI €19 163-€23 650) for RARC. The mean societal cost per patient was €18 926 (95% CI €17 431-€22 642) for ORC and €24 896 (95% CI €21 925-€31 888) for RARC. On average, RARC patients gained 0.79 QALYs (95% CI 0.74-0.85) compared to 0.81 QALYs (95% CI 0.77-0.85) for ORC patients, resulting in a mean QALY difference of -0.02 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80 000, RARC was cost-effective in 0.6% and 0.2% of the replications for the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RARC shows no difference in terms of QALYs, but is more expensive than ORC. Hence, RARC does not seem to provide value for money in comparison to ORC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study assessed the relation between costs and effects of robot-assisted surgery compared to open surgery for removal of the bladder in 348 Dutch patients with bladder cancer. We found that after 1 year, the two approaches were similarly effective according to a measure called quality-adjusted life years, but robot-assisted surgery was much more expensive. This trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register as NTR5362 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5214).

How can robot-assisted surgery provide value for money?

Objectives

To develop an interactive tool that estimates what potential benefits are needed for the robot to provide value for money when compared with endoscopic or open surgical interventions.

Design

A generic online interactive tool was developed to analyze the (health) effects needed to compensate for the additional costs of using a surgical robotic system from a healthcare perspective. The application of the tool is illustrated with a hypothetical new surgical robotic platform. A synthesis of evidence from different sources was used combined with interviews with surgeons.

Setting

Flexible tool that can be adapted to flexible settings.

Participants

Any hospital patient group for which robotic, endoscopic or open surgical procedures may be considered as appropriate treatment alternatives (eg, urology, gynecology, and so on).

Intervention

Robotically assisted surgical interventions.

Comparator

Endoscopic or open surgical interventions.

Main outcome measures

Thresholds of how much (health) effect is needed for robot-assisted surgery to provide value for money and to become cost-effective.

Results

The utilization rate of the surgical robotic system and a reduction in complications appeared to be important aspects in determining the value for money. To become cost-effective, it was deemed important for new surgical robotic systems to have added clinical benefit and become less costly than the current system.

Conclusions

This paper and its assisting interactive tool can be used by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to gain insight in the benefit needed to provide value for money when using a (new) surgical robotic system or, when the effects are known or can be estimated, to assess the value for money for a specific indication. For robotic surgery to provide most value for money, we recommend assessing for each indication whether the necessary effects seem achievable.

Overcoming Challenges with the Adoption of Point-of-Care Testing: From Technology Push and Clinical Needs to Value Propositions

Major technical challenges often prevent developers from producing new point-of-care technologies that deliver the required clinical performance in the intended settings of use. But even when devices meet clinical requirements, they can fail to be adopted and successfully implemented. Adoption barriers occur when decision makers do not understand the "value proposition" of new technologies. Current discussions of value in the context of point-of-care testing focus predominantly on the intended use and performance of the device from the manufacturer's point-of-view. However, the perspective of potential adopters in determining whether new devices provide value is also important, as is the opinion of all stakeholders who will be impacted. Incorporating value concepts into decisions made across the full development-to-adoption continuum can increase the likelihood that point-of-care testing will have the desired impact on health care delivery and patient outcomes. This article discusses how various approaches to technology development impact adoption and compares the characteristics of these approaches to emerging value concepts. It also provides an overview of value initiatives and tools that are being developed to support the evaluation of value propositions. These are presented for a range of technology adoption decision contexts, with particular applicability to point-of-care testing. Expanding the focus of research to address gaps in both the creation and evaluation of value propositions is imperative in order for value concepts to positively influence the adoption of point-of-care testing.