Literature DB >> 28008756

Cost effectiveness and robot-assisted urologic surgery: does it make dollars and sense?

Ryan W Dobbs1, Brenden P Magnan2, Nikita Abhyankar2, Ashok K Hemal3, Ben Challacombe4, Jim Hu5, Prokar Dasgupta4, Francesco Porpiglia6, Simone Crivellaro2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of the robotic surgical platform has led to distinct changes in practice patterns and the utilization of minimally invasive surgery in urology. While use of the robotic system is associated with improvements in perioperative outcomes such as estimated blood loss and hospital stay, there are significant fixed and variable costs with the purchase, maintenance and use of the robotics system that has led many authors to investigate the cost effectiveness of robotic urologic surgery. We sought to examine the best current available evidence for the cost effectiveness of robotic urologic surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Comprehensive electronic literature searches were conducted without language restriction to identify reports of published studies within PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS and Web of Science. Relevant articles were examined and reference lists cross referenced to find additional pertinent publications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: PubMed literature searches of "robot urology cost" (304 articles) "robotic prostatectomy cost" (215 articles), "robotic nephrectomy cost" (87 articles), "robotic cystectomy cost" (44 articles) and "robotic pyeloplasty cost" (41 articles) were initially reviewed in abstract form to find appropriate articles for inclusion. Given that robotic cystectomy (559 articles), robotic pyeloplasty (344 articles) robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (59 articles) are less frequently performed than robotic prostatectomy, all available articles published from January 1st 2000 until July 31st 2016 were reviewed for potential inclusion. After excluding duplicates, appropriate articles were pulled for full text review. 49 articles were used for the final analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The available literature on the cost effectiveness of robotic urologic surgery is somewhat limited by heterogeneity of research methods, local cost variations and methods for determining costs associated with surgical outcomes. The introduction of the robotic surgical platform has led to a dramatic change in the availability and utilization of laparoscopic surgery and is associated with both favorable perioperative outcomes as well as significantly greater fixed costs related to instrumentation and equipment expenses. Well-designed trials comparing open and robotic approaches in the contemporary era of widespread robotic adoption with quality of life and validated economic metrics will be necessary to provide evidence for continued use of this valuable technology.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28008756     DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02866-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minerva Urol Nefrol        ISSN: 0393-2249            Impact factor:   3.720


  12 in total

1.  Single-port robotic surgery: the next generation of minimally invasive urology.

Authors:  Ryan W Dobbs; Whitney R Halgrimson; Susan Talamini; Hari T Vigneswaran; Jessica O Wilson; Simone Crivellaro
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Robotic surgery in urology: the way forward.

Authors:  Riccardo Autorino; Francesco Porpiglia
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Robotics in urology.

Authors:  Luke A McGuinness; Bhavan Prasad Rai
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 4.  Bladder Cancer Survivorship.

Authors:  Sumeet K Bhanvadia
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Regional differences in total hospital charges between open and robotically assisted radical prostatectomy in the United States.

Authors:  Felix Preisser; Sebastiano Nazzani; Elio Mazzone; Sophie Knipper; Marco Bandini; Zhe Tian; Alexander Haese; Fred Saad; Kevin C Zorn; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Percutaneous Cryoablation versus Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy of Renal T1A Tumors: a Single-Center Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Rodrigo Gobbo Garcia; Marcelo Katz; Priscila Mina Falsarella; Daniel Tavares Malheiros; Helena Fukumoto; Gustavo Caserta Lemos; Vanessa Teich; Paolo Rogério Salvalaggio
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 2.740

7.  Robotic-assisted plate osteosynthesis of the anterior pelvic ring and acetabulum: an anatomical feasibility study.

Authors:  Markus A Küper; Alexander Trulson; Jonas Johannink; Bernhard Hirt; Artur Leis; Max Hoßfeld; Tina Histing; Steven C Herath; Bastian Amend
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-02-11

8.  Population-based analysis of cost and peri-operative outcomes between open and robotic primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for germ cell tumors.

Authors:  Raj Bhanvadia; Caleb Ashbrook; Aditya Bagrodia; Yair Lotan; Vitaly Margulis; Solomon Woldu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  Single port robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew Lai; Ryan W Dobbs; Susan Talamini; Whitney R Halgrimson; Jessica O Wilson; Hari T Vigneswaran; Simone Crivellaro
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04

Review 10.  Measuring Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Graham R Hale; Mohammed Shahait; David I Lee; Daniel J Lee; Ryan W Dobbs
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.