Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 283–294 | Cite as

Health care cost consequences of using robot technology for hysterectomy: a register-based study of consecutive patients during 2006–2013

  • Karin Rosenkilde Laursen
  • Vibe Bolvig HyldgårdEmail author
  • Pernille Tine Jensen
  • Rikke Søgaard
Original Article


The objective of this study is to examine the costs attributable to robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy from a broad healthcare sector perspective in a register-based longitudinal study. The population in this study were 7670 consecutive women undergoing hysterectomy between January 2006 and August 2013 in public hospitals in Denmark. The interventions in the study were total and radical hysterectomy performed robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH), total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), or open abdominal hysterectomy (OAH). Service use in the healthcare sector was evaluated 1 year before to 1 year after the surgery. Tariffs of the activity-based remuneration system and the diagnosis-related grouping case-mix system were used for valuation of primary and secondary care, respectively. Costs attributable to RALH were estimated using a difference-in-difference analytical approach and adjusted using multivariate linear regression. The main outcome measure was costs attributable to OAH, TLH, and RALH. For benign conditions RALH generated cost savings of € 2460 (95% CI 845; 4075) per patient compared to OAH and non-significant cost savings of € 1045 (95% CI −200; 2291) when compared with TLH. In cancer patients RALH generated cost savings of 3445 (95% CI 415; 6474) per patient when compared to OAH and increased costs of € 3345 (95% CI 2348; 4342) when compared to TLH. In cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy, RALH generated non-significant extra costs compared to OAH. Cost consequences were primarily due to differences in the use of inpatient service. There is a cost argument for using robot technology in patients with benign disease. In patients with malignant disease, the cost argument is dependent on comparator.


Cost analysis Economics Gynaecologic Hysterectomy Robot-assisted surgery 



We would like to thank Line Stjernholm Tipsmark, DEFACTUM, Central Denmark Region, Denmark, for her valuable contribution on requisition of data and provisional analyses.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study has been conducted in accordance with The Person Data Act, and approval from The Danish Data Protection Agency has been obtained (journal number 2007-58-0010).

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


None declared.


  1. 1.
    Lykke R, Blaakær J, Ottesen B, Gimbel H, Hysterectomy in Denmark 1977–2011 (2013) Changes in rate, indications, and hospitalization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 171(2):333–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geisler JP, Orr CJ, Khurshid N, Phibbs G, Manahan KJ (2010) Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20(3):438–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Advincula AP, Song A (2007) The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 19:331–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martino MA, Berger EA, McFetridge JT, Shubella J, Gosciniak G, Wejkszner T et al (2014) A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic vs. non-robotic approaches. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(3):389–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, Shi G, Song H, Clarke J (2012) Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease (review). Cochrane Collab 2:1–20Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swan K, Advincula AP (2011) Role of robotic surgery in urogynecologic surgery and radical hysterectomy: how far can we go? Curr Opin Urol 21:78–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reynisson P, Persson J (2013) Hospital costs for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 130(1):95–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desille-Gbaguidi H, Hebert T, Paternotte-Villemagne J, Gaborit C, Rush E, Body G (2013) Overall care cost comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for endometrial and cervical cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 171(2):348–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reza M, Maeso S, Blasco JA, Andradas E (2010) Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 97:1772–1783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paley PJ, Veljovich DS, Shah CA, Everett EN, Bondurant AE, Drescher CW et al (2011) Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(6):551.e1–551.e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seamon LG, Bryant SA, Rheaume PS, Kimball KJ, Huh WK, Fowler JM et al (2009) Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients. Obstet Gynecol 114(1):16–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, Kim KH, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS et al (2009) Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 113(1):36–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lönnerfors C, Reynisson P, Persson J (2015) A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:78–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosero EB, Kho KA, Schaffer JI, Giesecke M (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 122(4):778–786CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150(1):92–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF (2008) What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 111(1):41–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu Y, Neugut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 309(7):689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aarts J, Nieboer T, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol B. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;12(8):13–37Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):730–738. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.06.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 118(5):1005–1013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paraiso MFR, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T et al (2013) A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(5):368.e1–368.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic, von Felten S, Schär G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:604–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26(3):598–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, Scales CD, Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ (2010) Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116(3):685–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teljeur C, O’Neill M, Moran PS, Harrington P, Flattery M, Murphy L et al (2014) Economic evaluation of robot-assisted hysterectomy: a cost-minimisation analysis. BJOG 121(12):1546–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shi G, Lu D, Liu Z, Liu D, Zhou X. Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer (review). Cochrane Collab. 2014;(1):7–9. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008640.pub2
  28. 28.
    Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    CFK Folkesundhed & Kvalitetsudvikling. Health Technology assessment of robot-assisted surgery [Medicinsk teknologivurdering af robotassisteret kirurgi]. 2015Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M (2011) The Danish national patient register. Scand J Public Health 39(7 Suppl):30–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Andersen JS, Olivarius NDF, Krasnik A (2011) The Danish national health service register. Scand J Public Health 39:34–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales K, MacKenzie R (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    National Cancer Institute. Cancer Staging [Internet]. Cited 8 Nov 2015
  34. 34.
    Wu J, Wechter ME, Geller E, Nguyen T, Visco A (2007) Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol 110(5):1091–1095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jacoby V, Autry M, Jacobsen G, Domush R, Nakagawa S (2009) Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches. Obstet Gynecol 114(5):1041–1048CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steinberg PL, Merguerian PA, Bihrle W, Seigne JD (2008) The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology. 72:1068–1072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, Tomás EI, Laurila M, Luukkaala TH, Mäenpää JU (2016) Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(5):588.e1–588.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jabaaij L, van den Akker M, Schellevis FG (2012) Excess of health care use in general practice and of comorbid chronic conditions in cancer patients compared to controls. BMC Fam Pract 13:60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kannisto P, Harter P, Heitz F, Traut A, du Bois A, Kurzeder C (2014) Implementation of robot-assisted gynecologic surgery for patients with low and high BMI in a German gynecological cancer center. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290:143–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kruse M, Christiansen T (2011) Register-based studies of healthcare costs. Scand J Public Health 39:206–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kilic GS, Moore G, Elbatanony A, Radecki C, Phelps JY, Borahay MA (2011) Comparison of perioperative outcomes of total laparoscopic and robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign pathology during introduction of a robotic program. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011:683703CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lim PC, Crane JT, English EJ, Farnam RW, Garza DM, Winter ML et al (2016) Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int J Gynecol Obstet Int Fed Gynecol Obstet 133(3):359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Rosenkilde Laursen
    • 1
  • Vibe Bolvig Hyldgård
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Pernille Tine Jensen
    • 3
  • Rikke Søgaard
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Public HealthAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Health EconomicsDEFACTUMAarhus NDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Clinical MedicineAarhus UniversityAarhus NDenmark

Personalised recommendations