Abstract
The objective of this study is to perform an economic analysis and examine the influence of procedural volume of our hospital, evaluating the accounting systems of Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) in patients with cervical carcinoma, due to the costs widely variable and lack in literature. Costs were collected prospectively, from March 2010 to March 2016. Direct costs were determined by examining the overall medical pathway for each type of intervention. 52 patients with cervical carcinoma, which were matched by age, body mass index, tumor size, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, comorbidity, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histology type, and tumor grade to obtain homogeneous samples. Surgical time was similar for both the groups. RRH was associated with a significantly less (EBL) estimated blood loss (P = 0.000). The overall median length of follow-up was of 59 months. The cost of the robot-specific supplies was €2705 per intervention. When considering overall medical surgical care, the patient treatment average cost of an RRH was €5650,31 with an hospital stay (HS) of 3.58 days (SD ± 1) vs €3750.86 for TRLH, with an HS of 4.27 days (SD ± 1.79). Our results are similar to Finnish data; the costs of robot-assisted hysterectomies were 1.5 times higher than TLRH. The main drivers of additional costs are robotic disposable instruments, which are not compensated by the hospital room costs and by an experienced team staff. Implementation of strategies to reduce the cost of robotic instrumentation is due. RRH resulted less expensive than robotic simple hysterectomy for benign conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Fachechi G, Corso S, Pirovano C, Trio C, Villa M, Turoli D, Youssef A (2016) Cost analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy vs open approach performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center. J Robot Surg. doi:10.1007/s11701-016-0625-5
Bellia A, Vitale SG, Laganà AS, Cannone F, Houvenaeghel G, Rua S, Ladaique A, Jauffret C, Ettore G, Lambaudie E (2016) Feasibility and surgical outcomes of conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopy for early-stage ovarian cancer: a retrospective, multicenter analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294(3):615–622. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4087-9
Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Trio C, Faccioli P, Croce P, Tagliabue F, Dainese E (2015) Robotic shaving technique in 25 patients affected by deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectovaginal space. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 7:1287–1292. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2015.06.002
Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Terruzzi M, Strippoli D, Bigi L (2013) Robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal deep pelvic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma of the lower limb: initial report of four cases and outcomes at 1-year follow-up. Updates Surg 65(4):339–340
Querleu D, Morrow CP (2008) Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. 9(3):297–303. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3
Vitale SG, Gasbarro N, Lagana AS, Sapia F, Rapisarda AM, Valenti G, Trovato MA, Rossetti D, Chiofalo B, Barrasso G, Tinelli A, Corrado F (2016) Safe introduction of ancillary trocars in gynecological surgery: the “yellow island” anatomical landmark. Ann Ital Chir 87:608–611
Rossetti D, Vitale SG, Bogani G, Rapisarda AM, Gulino FA, Frigerio L (2015) Usefulness of vessel-sealing devices for peripartum hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Updates Surg 67(3):301–304
Barbash G, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704
Dennis T, Mendonc AC, Narducci F et al (2012) Study of surplus cost of robotic assistance for radical assistance for radical hysterectomy, versus laparotomy and standard laparoscopy. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 40:77–83
Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738
Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR (2009) Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 13:364–369
Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Gemer O, Bhagan L, Nezhat C (2009) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. JSLS 13:125–128
Tapper AM, Hannola M, Zeitlin R, Isojärvi J, Sintonen H, Ikonen TS (2014) A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 177:1–10
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Not received.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have not conflict of interest regarding the 21 matter of the submitter paper.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pellegrino, A., Damiani, G.R., Fachechi, G. et al. Cost analysis of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center: an update in gynecologic oncological field. Updates Surg 69, 517–522 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-017-0462-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-017-0462-8