Abstract
In this chapter, the different steps of setting up a robotic colorectal surgical program are analysed from both financial and clinical standpoints.
Robotic surgery represents a further step forward in the evolution of minimally invasive surgery and is one of the major advances and innovations in the surgical field of the last decades. Nevertheless, higher costs and a still lacking evident clinical proof of superiority, when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, have limited its widespread acceptance.
It is of paramount importance to define an institutional business plan when starting a robotic surgery program and many factors should be taken into account in order to reduce institutional financial burden and optimize clinical outcomes. Surgical volume and multidisciplinary use are fundamental to reduce per-case share of capital investment and avoid underutilization of the platform. An adequate structured training program is fundamental to ensure optimization of clinical outcomes since the beginning of surgical activity.
Moreover, evaluation of the overall institutional financial burden should consider the potential for cost savings related to robotic surgery, such as reduction in complications and length of stay. A traditional direct costs’ assessment should shift toward a “total-episode” costs’ evaluation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Payne CJ, Cundy TP, Nandi D, Yang GZ, Darzi A. Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery: a retrospective observational study. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(4) https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1870. Epub 2017 Nov 6.
www.investor’s Business Daily—Allison Gatlin Medical product outsourcing 6.12.2018.
Petz W, Spinoglio G, Choi GS, Parvaiz A, Santiago C, Marecik S, Giulianotti PC, Bianchi PP. Structured training and competence assessment in colorectal robotic surgery. Results of a consensus experts round table. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(4):634–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1731. Epub 2016 Jan 25.
Byrn JC, Hrabe JE, Charlton ME. An initial experience with 85 consecutive robotic-assisted rectal dissections: improved operating times and lower costs with experience. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(11):3101–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3591-x. Epub 2014 Jun 14.
Liu CA, Huang KH, Chen MH, Lo SS, Li AF, Wu CW, Shyr YM, Fang WL. Comparison of the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive and open surgery for octogenarian and older compared to younger gastric cancer patients: a retrospective cohortstudy. BMC Surg. 2017;17(1):68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0265-3.
Plotkin A, Ceppa EP, Zarzaur BL, Kilbane EM, Riall TS, Pitt HA. Reduced morbidity with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(3):279–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.014. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
Bhama AR, Obias V, Welch KB, Vandewarker JF, Cleary RK. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(4):1576–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4381-9. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
Shaligram A, Unnirevi J, Simorov A, Kothari VM, Oleynikov D. How does the robot affect outcomes? A retrospective review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy for achalasia. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(4):1047–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1994-5.
Daskalaki D, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Brown M, Bianco FM, Tzvetanov I, Davis M, Kim J, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC. Financial impact of the robotic approach in LiverSurgery: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs between the robotic and open technique in a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27(4):375–82. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0576. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, Swan RZ, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(3):554–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1688.
Sun Z, Kim J, Adam MA, Nussbaum DP, Speicher PJ, Mantyh CR, Migaly J. Minimally invasive versus open low anterior resection: equivalent survival in a national analysis of 14,033 patients with rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2016;263(6):1152–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001388.
Tam MS, Kaoutzanis C, Mullard AJ, Regenbogen SE, Franz MG, Hendren S, Krapohl G, Vandewarker JF, Lampman RM, Cleary RK. A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(2):455–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4218-6. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
Salman M, Bell T, Martin J, Bhuva K, Grim R, Ahuja V. Use, cost, complications, and mortality of robotic versus nonrobotic general surgery procedures based on a nationwide database. Am Surg. 2013;79(6):553–60.
Formisano G, Esposito S, Coratti F, Giuliani G, Salaj A, Bianchi PP. Structured training program in colorectal surgery: the robotic surgeon as a new paradigm. Minerva Chir. 2019;74(2):170–5. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4733.18.07951-8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bianchi, P.P., Formisano, G. (2021). Institutional Economics in Robotic Colorectal Surgery. In: Gharagozloo, F., Patel, V.R., Giulianotti, P.C., Poston, R., Gruessner, R., Meyer, M. (eds) Robotic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53594-0_130
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53594-0_130
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-53593-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-53594-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)