A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of the Use of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopy in Surgery Compared with Open or Laparoscopic Surgery
- 509 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsRadical Prostatectomy Pelvic Organ Prolapse Partial Nephrectomy Clinical Pathway Supplementary Appendix
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.
- 2.Campanelli G, et al. Inguinal hernia: state of the art. Int J Surg. 2008;6(Supplement 1(0)):S26–S28.Google Scholar
- 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
- 8.Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313;275–283.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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