Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 457–467 | Cite as

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of the Use of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopy in Surgery Compared with Open or Laparoscopic Surgery

  • Zafer Tandogdu
  • Luke Vale
  • Cynthia Fraser
  • Craig Ramsay
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Robot assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy to assist in surgical procedures, has high capital and operating costs. Systematically assembled evidence demonstrating its clinical and cost effectiveness would be helpful for its adoption by decision makers.

Objective

To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery compared with relevant alternatives. Methods and results of identified studies were assessed to identify the deficiencies in evidence and areas for further research.

Methods

Studies reporting both costs and outcomes for comparisons of RAL with laparoscopy and/or open surgery were systematically identified. Searches were conducted in February 2015 on MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED. Quality of the included studies was assessed against a standard checklist for economic analyses. Length of hospital stay and operating time (determinants of cost), cost of intervention, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were extracted. To aid comparison, costs were converted into a common currency and price year (2014 US dollars).

Results

Forty-seven eligible studies were identified (full economic evaluation n = 6 and cost analysis n = 41). Economic models were used in 11 (23 %) studies. Only three studies used a model considered representative of the disease and clinical pathway with a time-horizon allowing capture of relevant differences in outcomes across strategies. The cost of RAL varied substantially between uses, ranging from US$7011 for hysterectomy to over US$30,000 for radical cystectomy. The majority of estimates were between US$15,000 and US$25,000 per person. In part this difference is explained by the difference between studies in which costs were included. It was also identified to have higher costs than the alternatives it was compared against. Incremental cost per QALY for RAL radical prostatectomy was US$28,801–$31,763 over a 10-year period assuming 200 cases per annum.

Conclusion

The clinical evidence available for RAL overall and used within included studies is limited. RAL surgery costs were consistently higher than open and laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, in adopting the robotic technology decision makers need to take into account the cost effectiveness within their own systems. Economic models generated and published for radical prostatectomy and hysterectomy may be adapted to other health systems if the care pathway is similar to provide locally relevant data.

Keywords

Radical Prostatectomy Pelvic Organ Prolapse Partial Nephrectomy Clinical Pathway Supplementary Appendix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Author contributions

Zafer Tandogdu: Review of articles, data extraction, and drafting of manuscript.

Luke Vale: critical appraisal, drafting of manuscript.

Cynthia Fraser: Library search terminology description, library searches.

Craig Ramsay: Corresponding author, critical appraisal.

Guarantor of overall content: Luke Vale.

Compliance with ethical standards

Study funding and conflict of interest

Zafer Tandogdu is with a European Association of Urology scholarship (EUSP clinical fellowship) at Newcastle University, Medical School, Northern Institute for Cancer Research (NICR), Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

No funding was granted for the independent work conducted.

Supplementary material

40258_2015_185_MOESM1_ESM.docx (426 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 427 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Smith JA Jr, Herrell SD. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: do minimally invasive approaches offer significant advantages? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(32):8170–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campanelli G, et al. Inguinal hernia: state of the art. Int J Surg. 2008;6(Supplement 1(0)):S26–S28.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vale L, Ludbrook A, Grant A. Assessing the costs and consequences of laparoscopic vs. open methods of groin hernia repair: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(6):844–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Secin FP, et al. The learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an international multicenter study. J Urol. 2010;184(6):2291–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Satava RM. EMerging technologies for surgery in the 21st century. Arch Surg. 1999;134(11):1197–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yohannes P, et al. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology. 2002;60(1):39–45 (discussion 45).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berwick DM. Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA. 2003;289(15):1969–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313;275–283.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:598–606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drummond M, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Close A, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol. 2013;64(3):361–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hohwu L, et al. A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ. 2011;14(4):403–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Malley SP, Jordan E. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(2):286–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flattery M, Harrington P, O’Neill M, et al. Health technology assessment of robot-assisted surgery in selected surgical procedures. Health Information and Quality Authority Health Technology Assessment Directorate Web site; 2011. http://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/HTA-robot-assisted-surgery.pdf. Accessed June 2015.
  15. 15.
    Ho C, Tsakonas E., Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Corcos J, Pautler S. Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and economic analyses. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2011. Technology report no. 137.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Teljeur C, et al. Economic evaluation of robot-assisted hysterectomy: a cost-minimisation analysis. Bjog. 2014;121(12):1546–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eldefrawy A, et al. Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(5):576–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaligram A, et al. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barnett JC, et al. Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(3):685–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scales CD Jr, et al. Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;174(6):2323–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu HY, et al. Comparative analysis of outcomes and costs following open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1239–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wright JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):11–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wright JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):783–91.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tomaszewski JJ, et al. Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2012;80(1):126–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poston RS, et al. Comparison of economic and patient outcomes with minimally invasive versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting techniques. Ann Surg. 2008;248(4):638–46.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bolenz C, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):453–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tyler JA, et al. Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(4):458–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pasic RP, et al. Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(6):730–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright JD, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee R, et al. The economics of robotic cystectomy: cost comparison of open versus robotic cystectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1886–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1431–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yu HY, et al. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1392–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hyams ES, et al. Impact of robotic technique and surgical volume on the cost of radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(3):298–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mir SA, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):447–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1044–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Landeen LB, et al. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med. 2011;64(6):197–9 (201, 203 passim).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Castle SM, et al. Cost comparison of nephron-sparing treatments for cT1a renal masses. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1327–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosero EB, et al. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(4):778–86.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anger JT, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dayaratna S, et al. Hospital costs of total vaginal hysterectomy compared with other minimally invasive hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):120.e1–6.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Deen SA, et al. Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(3):1000–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Juo YY, et al. Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches? First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(2):177–84.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Keller DS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):212–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leitao MM Jr, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotically assisted laparoscopy for newly diagnosed uterine cancers. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1031–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Leow JJ, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):569–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Owen B, et al. How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(5):1686–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Swanson SJ, et al. Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(3):929–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Varda BK, et al. National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2014;191(4):1090–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Woelk JL, et al. Cost differences among robotic, vaginal, and abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):255–62.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mano R, et al. Cost comparison of open and robotic partial nephrectomy using a short postoperative pathway. Urology. 2015;85(3):596–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hagen ME, et al. Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2012;22(1):52–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Breitenstein S, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg. 2008;247(6):987–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Secretariat MA. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]. 2010;10(27):118.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hall RM, Linklater N, Coughlin G. Robotic and open radical prostatectomy in the public health sector: cost comparison. ANZ J Surg. 2014;84(6):477–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Barbaro S, Paudice A, Scipioni S, Martin B, Charrier L, Bert F, Gianino MM. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a mini-health technology assessment in a teaching hospital. HealthMed. 2012;6(3):7.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Coronado PJ, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(2):289–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Reynisson P, Persson J. Hospital costs for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130(1):95–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Leow JJ, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):569–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jaime Caro J, et al. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Roberts M, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Maki. 2012;32(5):678–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ramsay C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(41):1–313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bruins HM, et al. The impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1065–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ljungberg B, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):398–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Welte R, et al. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(13):857–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Coyle D, Lee KM, Cooper NJ. Use of evidence in decision models, in evidence-based decisions and economics. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 106–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zafer Tandogdu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Luke Vale
    • 2
  • Cynthia Fraser
    • 3
  • Craig Ramsay
    • 3
  1. 1.Northern Institute for Cancer ResearchNewcastle UniversityNewcastle Upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Health Economics Group, Institute of Health and SocietyNewcastle UniversityNewcastle Upon TyneUK
  3. 3.Health Services Research UnitUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations