Literature DB >> 21604962

A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy.

Lena Hohwü1, Michael Borre, Lars Ehlers, Knud Venborg Pedersen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost effectiveness and cost utility comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).
METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study a total of 231 men between the age of 50 and 69 years and with clinically localised prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at the Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2007, were included. The RALP and RRP patients were matched 1:2 on the basis of age and the D'Amico Risk Classification of Prostate Cancer; 77 RALP and 154 RRP. An economic evaluation was made to estimate direct costs of the first postoperative year and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per successful surgical treatment and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A successful RP was defined as: no residual cancer (PSA <0.2 ng/ml, preserved urinary continence and erectile function. A one-way sensitivity analysis was made to investigate the impact of changing one variable at a time.
RESULTS: The ICER per extra successful treatment was €64,343 using RALP. For indirect costs, the ICER per extra successful treatment was €13,514 using RALP. The difference in effectiveness between RALP and RRP procedures was 7% in favour of RALP. In the present study no QALY was gained 1 year after RALP, however this result is uncertain due to a high degree of missing data. The sensitivity analysis did not change the results noticeably. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by the design resulting in a low percentage of information on the effect of medication for erectile dysfunction and only short-term quality of life was measured at 1 year postoperatively.
CONCLUSION: RALP was more effective and more costly. A way to improve the cost effectiveness may be to perform RALP at fewer high volume urology centres and utilise the full potential of each robot.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21604962     DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2011.586621

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Econ        ISSN: 1369-6998            Impact factor:   2.448


  16 in total

Review 1.  [What can medicine expect from health economics?].

Authors:  E Bismarck; B J Schmitz-Dräger; O Schöffski
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  The role of open and laparoscopic stone surgery in the modern era of endourology.

Authors:  Michael S Borofsky; James E Lingeman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 14.432

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

Authors:  Scott M Glaser; Ronny Kalash; Dante R Bongiorni; Mark S Roberts; Goundappa K Balasubramani; Bruce L Jacobs; Sushil Beriwal; Dwight E Heron; Joel S Greenberger
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

4.  Efficacy and cost of robotic hepatectomy: is the robot cost-prohibitive?

Authors:  Jonathan G Sham; Morgan K Richards; Y David Seo; Venu G Pillarisetty; Raymond S Yeung; James O Park
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-05-06

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

Authors:  Kannan Sridharan; Gowri Sivaramakrishnan
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-02-23

Review 6.  Cost of New Technologies in Prostate Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review of Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy, Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy, and Proton Beam Therapy.

Authors:  Florian Rudolf Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Sam B Bhayani; Paul L Nguyen; David Penson; Jim Hu
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  Robotic Surgical System for Radical Prostatectomy: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2017-07-07

8.  Independent predictors of prolonged operative time during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Philippe D Violette; David Mikhail; Gregory R Pond; Stephen E Pautler
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-02-12

9.  The Comparative Harms of Open and Robotic Prostatectomy in Population Based Samples.

Authors:  Brock O'Neil; Tatsuki Koyama; JoAnn Alvarez; Ralph M Conwill; Peter C Albertsen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Karen E Hoffman; Richard M Hoffman; Sherrie H Kaplan; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Robert A Stephenson; Matthew J Resnick; Daniel A Barocas; David F Penson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Disparities in the receipt of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: between-hospital and within-hospital analysis using 2009-2011 California inpatient data.

Authors:  Jungyoon Kim; Wael ElRayes; Fernando Wilson; Dejun Su; Dmitry Oleynikov; Marsha Morien; Li-Wu Chen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-05-03       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.