Y Quijano1, J Nuñez-Alfonsel2, B Ielpo3, V Ferri1, R Caruso1, H Durán1, E Díaz1, L Malavé1, I Fabra1, E Pinna1, R Isernia1, Á Hidalgo4, E Vicente1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain. 2. Instituto de Validación de La Eficiencia Clínica (IVEc), Fundación de Investigación HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain. jnalfonsel@fundacionhm.com. 3. Department of General Surgery, Hospital HM Regla, HM Hospitales, León, Spain. 4. Department of Economic Analysis and Finances, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The differences between the costs of robotic rectal resection and of the laparoscopic approach are still not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: We conducted an observational, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study on patients having laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection between February 2014 and March 2018 at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). The primary endpoint was to compare cost effectiveness in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY was used as a threshold to determine the most cost-effective treatment. RESULTS: A total of 81 RRR and 104 LRR were included. The mean operative costs were higher for RRR (4307.09€ versus 3834.58€; p = 0.04), although mean overall costs were similar (7272.03€ for RRR and 6968.63€ for the LLR; p = 0.44). Mean QALYs at 1 year for the RRR group (0.8482) was higher than that associated with LRR (0.6532) (p = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ there was a 95.54% and 97.18% probability, respectively, that RRR was more cost-effective than LRR. CONCLUSIONS: Our data regarding the cost-effectiveness of RRR versus LRR shows a benefit for RRR.
BACKGROUND: The differences between the costs of robotic rectal resection and of the laparoscopic approach are still not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: We conducted an observational, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study on patients having laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection between February 2014 and March 2018 at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). The primary endpoint was to compare cost effectiveness in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY was used as a threshold to determine the most cost-effective treatment. RESULTS: A total of 81 RRR and 104 LRR were included. The mean operative costs were higher for RRR (4307.09€ versus 3834.58€; p = 0.04), although mean overall costs were similar (7272.03€ for RRR and 6968.63€ for the LLR; p = 0.44). Mean QALYs at 1 year for the RRR group (0.8482) was higher than that associated with LRR (0.6532) (p = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ there was a 95.54% and 97.18% probability, respectively, that RRR was more cost-effective than LRR. CONCLUSIONS: Our data regarding the cost-effectiveness of RRR versus LRR shows a benefit for RRR.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost–benefit analysis; Health care costs; Laparoscopy; Quality-adjusted life years; Rectal neoplasms; Robotic surgical procedures
Authors: Julio López-Bastida; Juan Oliva; Fernando Antoñanzas; Anna García-Altés; Ramón Gisbert; Javier Mar; Jaume Puig-Junoy Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2010-04-20
Authors: Gemma Vilagut; Montse Ferrer; Luis Rajmil; Pablo Rebollo; Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda; José M Quintana; Rosalía Santed; José M Valderas; Aida Ribera; Antonia Domingo-Salvany; Jordi Alonso Journal: Gac Sanit Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.139
Authors: Benedetto Ielpo; H Duran; E Diaz; I Fabra; R Caruso; L Malavé; V Ferri; J Nuñez; A Ruiz-Ocaña; E Jorge; S Lazzaro; D Kalivaci; Y Quijano; E Vicente Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2013-06
Authors: Benedetto Ielpo; Mauro Podda; Fernando Burdio; Patricia Sanchez-Velazquez; Maria-Alejandra Guerrero; Javier Nuñez; Miguel Toledano; Salvador Morales-Conde; Julio Mayol; Manuel Lopez-Cano; Eloy Espín-Basany; Gianluca Pellino Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-05-06