Literature DB >> 26350758

Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system.

Marnique Basto1,2,3, Niranjan Sathianathen1, Luc Te Marvelde4,5, Shane Ryan1, Jeremy Goad1,6, Nathan Lawrentschuk1,7, Anthony J Costello2,3,8, Daniel A Moon1,3,8,9, Alexander G Heriot1,2, Jim Butler10, Declan G Murphy1,2,3,8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare patterns of care and peri-operative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with other surgical approaches, and to create an economic model to assess the viability of RARP in the public case-mix funding system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all radical prostatectomies (RPs) performed for localized prostate cancer in Victoria, Australia, from the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset, a large administrative database that records all hospital inpatient episodes in Victoria. The first database, covering the period from July 2010 to April 2013 (n = 5 130), was used to compare length of hospital stay (LOS) and blood transfusion rates between surgical approaches. This was subsequently integrated into an economic model. A second database (n = 5 581) was extracted to cover the period between July 2010 and June 2013, three full financial years, to depict patterns of care and make future predictions for the 2014-2015 financial year, and to perform a hospital volume analysis. We then created an economic model to evaluate the incremental cost of RARP vs open RP (ORP) and laparoscopic RP (LRP), incorporating the cost-offset from differences in LOS and blood transfusion rate. The economic model constructs estimates of the diagnosis-related group (DRG) costs of ORP and LRP, adds the gross cost of the surgical robot (capital, consumables, maintenance and repairs), and manipulates these DRG costs to obtain a DRG cost per day, which can be used to estimate the cost-offset associated with RARP in comparison with ORP and LRP. Economic modelling was performed around a base-case scenario, assuming a 7-year robot lifespan and 124 RARPs performed per financial year. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for the four-arm da Vinci SHD, Si and Si dual surgical systems (Intuitive Surgical Ltd, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).
RESULTS: We identified 5 581 patients who underwent RP in 20 hospitals in Victoria with an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgical approach in the public and private sector. The majority of RPs (4 233, 75.8%), in Victoria were performed in the private sector, with an overall 11.5% decrease in the total number of RPs performed over the 3-year study period. In the most recent financial year, 820 (47%), 765 (44%) and 173 patients (10%) underwent RARP, ORP and LRP, respectively. In the same timeframe, RARP accounted for 26 and 53% of all RPs in the public and private sector, respectively. Public hospitals in Victoria perform a median number of 14 RPs per year and 40% of hospitals perform <10 RPs per year. In the public system, RARP was associated with a mean (±sd) LOS of 1.4 (±1.3) days compared with 3.6 (±2.7) days for LRP and 4.8 (±3.5) days for ORP (P < 0.001). The mean blood transfusion rates were 0, 6 and 15% for RARP, LRP and ORP, respectively (P < 0.001). The incremental cost per RARP case compared with ORP and LRP was A$442 and A$2 092, respectively, for the da Vinci S model, A$1 933 and A$3 583, respectively, for the da Vinci Si model and A$3 548 and A$5 198, respectively for the da Vinci Si dual. RARP can become cost-equivalent with ORP where ~140 cases per year are performed in the base-case scenario.
CONCLUSIONS: Over the period studied, RARP has become the dominant approach to RP, with significantly shorter LOS and lower blood transfusion rate. This translates to a significant cost-offset, which is further enhanced by increasing the case volume, extending the lifespan of the robot and reductions in the cost of consumables and capital.
© 2015 The Authors BJU International © 2015 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Australia; economic analysis; health technology assessment; patterns of care; prostate cancer; robotic prostatectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26350758     DOI: 10.1111/bju.13317

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  19 in total

1.  High volume is the key for improving in-hospital outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2013.

Authors:  Christer Groeben; Rainer Koch; Martin Baunacke; Manfred P Wirth; Johannes Huber
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience.

Authors:  Renato Almeida Rosa de Oliveira; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Thiago Camelo Mourão; Ricardo de Lima Favaretto; Thiago Borges Marques Santana; Ademar Lopes; Stenio de Cassio Zequi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-08

3.  Robotic surgery in public hospitals of Latin-America: a castle of sand?

Authors:  Fernando P Secin; Rafael Coelho; Juan I Monzó Gardiner; Jose Gadú Campos Salcedo; Roberto Puente; Levin Martínez; Diana Finkelstein; Rair Valero; Antonio León; Daniel Angeloni; José Rozanec; Milton Berger; Leandro Totti Cavazzola; Eliney Ferreira Faria; Roberto Días Machado; Felipe Lott; Franz Campos; Jorge G Morales Montor; Carlos Sánchez Moreno; Hugo Dávila Barrios
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Artificial intelligence and robotics: a combination that is changing the operating room.

Authors:  Iulia Andras; Elio Mazzone; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Geert De Naeyer; Matthias N van Oosterom; Sergi Beato; Tessa Buckle; Shane O'Sullivan; Pim J van Leeuwen; Alexander Beulens; Nicolae Crisan; Frederiek D'Hondt; Peter Schatteman; Henk van Der Poel; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Alexandre Mottrie
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  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

6.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for pediatric tumors: a bicenter experience.

Authors:  P Meignan; Q Ballouhey; J Lejeune; K Braik; B Longis; A R Cook; H Lardy; L Fourcade; Aurélien Binet
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-12-29

7.  Robots drive the German radical prostatectomy market: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2013.

Authors:  C Groeben; R Koch; M Baunacke; M P Wirth; J Huber
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 8.  Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss?

Authors:  Thomas P Cundy; Hani J Marcus; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Sanjeev Khurana; Ara Darzi
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 1.827

9.  Postoperative course following complex major pediatric urologic surgery: A single surgeon experience.

Authors:  Aaron Wallace; Maria Veronica Rodriguez; Mohan S Gundeti
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 2.545

10.  Use of video education in postoperative patient counselling: A quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Luke D E Witherspoon; Ailsa M L Gan; Rodney H Breau; Ginette Saumure; Jacqueline Shea; Ranjeeta Mallick; Jeffrey E Warren; Brian Blew; Ilias Cagiannos; Christopher Morash; Luke T Lavallée
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.