Literature DB >> 33609369

Economic assessment of starting robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a single-centre retrospective comparative study: the EASTER study.

F Muysoms1, M Vierstraete1, F Nachtergaele1, S Van Garsse2, P Pletinckx1, A Ramaswamy3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the USA, despite a lack of proven clinical advantage and higher material cost. No studies have been published regarding the cost and outcome of robotic inguinal hernia surgery in a European Union setting.
METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was performed on the early outcome and costs related to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, with either conventional or robot-assisted surgery.
RESULTS: The study analysed 676 patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (272 conventional and 404 robotic repairs). Conventional laparoscopic and robotic repair groups were comparable in terms of duration of surgery (57.6 versus 56.2 min respectively; P = 0.224), intraoperative complication rate (1.1 versus 1.2 per cent; P = 0.990), in-hospital complication rate (4.4 versus 4.5 per cent; P = 0.230) and readmission rate (3.3 versus 1.2 per cent; P = 0.095). There was a significant difference in hospital stay in favour of the robotic approach (P = 0.014), with more patients treated on an outpatient basis in the robotic group (59.2 per cent versus 70.0 per cent for conventional repair). At 4-week follow-up, equal numbers of seromas or haematomas were recorded in the conventional laparoscopic and robotic groups (13.3 versus 15.7 per cent respectively; P = 0.431), but significantly more umbilical wound infections were seen in the conventional group (3.0 per cent versus 0 per cent in the robotic group; P = 0.001). Robotic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive overall, with a mean cost of €2612 versus €1963 for the conventional laparoscopic approach (mean difference €649; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive than conventional laparoscopy. More patients were treated as outpatients in the robotic group. Postoperative complications were infrequent and mild.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33609369      PMCID: PMC7893454          DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJS Open        ISSN: 2474-9842


  20 in total

1.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-10-20

2.  Open versus robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter matched analysis of clinical outcomes.

Authors:  R Gamagami; E Dickens; A Gonzalez; L D'Amico; C Richardson; J Rabaza; R Kolachalam
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 4.739

3.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis.

Authors:  Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Ten golden rules for a safe MIS inguinal hernia repair using a new anatomical concept as a guide.

Authors:  Christiano Claus; Marcelo Furtado; Flavio Malcher; Leandro Totti Cavazzola; Edward Felix
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Prospective, multicenter, pairwise analysis of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: early results from the Prospective Hernia Study.

Authors:  K LeBlanc; E Dickens; A Gonzalez; R Gamagami; R Pierce; C Balentine; G Voeller
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 4.739

6.  Predictors of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Authors:  John D Vossler; K Keano Pavlosky; Sarah M Murayama; Marilyn A Moucharite; Kenric M Murayama; Dean J Mikami
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2019-04-28       Impact factor: 2.192

7.  Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review.

Authors:  B Pokala; P R Armijo; L Flores; D Hennings; D Oleynikov
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 4.739

8.  Robot-assisted abdominal wall surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  N A Henriksen; K K Jensen; F Muysoms
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 4.739

9.  Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot?

Authors:  Eric J Charles; J Hunter Mehaffey; Carlos A Tache-Leon; Peter T Hallowell; Robert G Sawyer; Zequan Yang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic groin hernia repair: observational case-control study on the operative time during the learning curve.

Authors:  Filip Muysoms; Stijn Van Cleven; Iris Kyle-Leinhase; Conrad Ballecer; Archana Ramaswamy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review.

Authors:  Danni Lip Hansen; Siv Fonnes; Jacob Rosenberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 4.584

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.