Abstract
This chapter is focused on the economic evaluation of robotic surgery. Economic evaluation in healthcare programmes is defined as the “comparative analysis of alternative courses of action in terms of both their costs and consequences” (Drummond et al. 1997), and it aims to “ensure that benefits gained outweigh benefits forgone” [William (1986) in Drummond et al. (1997)].
In recent years, economic evaluation of healthcare programmes has increased in popularity to the point where it has become an indispensible part of any healthcare-related studies. The most widespread application of this subject is in the pharmaceutical industry, i.e., pharmaeconomics. The reasons of its increased application may be due to the recognition of the conflict between the limited health resources and unlimited health service demand. Economic evaluation can help in health service decision making, in health policy making, and in regulation of the healthcare market, where asymmetric information is abundant and free market access is prohibited.
This chapter considers the importance of the economic evaluation of robotic surgery and reviews the current state-of-art in this area. When new technologies involve substantial investment, economic evaluation can be used to establish a rational resource allocation system within a limited budget. Finally, this chapter concludes by making suggestions for future developments in the economic evaluation of robotic surgery.
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
Anis AH, Gagnon Y (2000) Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions: so much for guidelines. PharmacoEconomics 18:55–62
Abrams P, Wein A (2000) Recent advances: urology. BMJ 321: 1393–1396
Berkshire PCT Priority Committee (2007) Minutes of meeting held on Wednesday 4th July. Accessed on 15th April 2008 at: http://www.berkshire.nhs.uk/priorities/_policies/Minutes-4-July-2007.pdf
Brazier JE, Johnson AG (2001) Economics of surgery. The Lancet 358:1077–1081
Bucerius J, Metz S, Walther T, Falk V, Doll N, Noack F, Holzhey D, Diegeler A, Mohr F (2002) Endoscopic internal thoracic artery dissection leads to significant reduction of pain after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 73(4):1180–1184
Caceres F, Sanchez C, Martinez-Pineiro L, Tabernero A, Alonso S, Cisneros J, Cabrera Castillo PM, Alvarez Maestro M, Martin Hernandez M, Perez-Utrilla Perez M, de la Pena JJ (2007) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robotic. Archivos españoles de urología 60(4):430–438
Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M (2002) A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 360:711–715
Commonwealth of Australia (1995) Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including economic analyses. Department of Health and Community Services, Canberra
Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46(12):1633–1639
Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G (1997) Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, quoting William A (1986)
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ficarra V, Cavaleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W (2007) Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 51:45–56
Food and Drug Administration (1997) Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997, section 114. Accessed on 14th April 2008 at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/105-115.htm
Gettman M, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G (2002). A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 42(5):453–457
Giulianotti P, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, Caravaglios G (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138(7):777–784
Gurusamy KS et al. (2007) Robot assistant for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4
Heemskerk J, Van Dam R, Van Gemert WG, Beets GL, Greve JW, Jacobs MJ, Bouvy ND (2005) First results after introduction of the four-armed da Vinci Surgical System in fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Digest Surg 22(6):426–431
Horgan S, Vanuno D, Sileri P, Cicalese L, Benedetti E (2002) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for kidney transplantation. Transplantation 73(9):1474–1479
Kahneman D (2005) Determinants of health economic decisions in actual practice: the role of behavioural economics. A summary of a presentation given by Prof. Daniel Kahneman at the ISPOR 10th Annual Int Meet First Plenary Session. Value in Health 9(2):65–67
Krahn M (1999) Principles of economic evaluation in surgery. World J Surg 23:1242–1248
Lepor H (2006) Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol Sem Orig Investig 24:91–93
Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT (2004) The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. The J Urol 172:1431–1435
Lunca S, Bouras G, Stanescu AC (2005) Gastrointestinal robot-assisted surgery. A current perspective. Romanian J Gastroenterol 14(4):385–391
McGuire A (2006) Theoretical concepts in the economic evaluation of healthcare. In: Drummond M, McGuire A (eds) Economic Evaluation in Healthcare: Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Melvin W, Needleman B, Krause K, Schneider F, Ellison E (2002) Computer-enhanced vs standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J Gastroint Surg 6(1):11–16
Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2002) Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60(5):864–868
Morino M, Beninca G, Giraudo G, Del Genio GM, Rebecchi F, Garrone C (2004) Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endoscopy 18(12):1742–1746
Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garrone C, Rebecchi F (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Brit J Surg 93(5):553–558
Mouraviev V, Nosnik I, Sun L, Robertson CN, Walther P, Albala D, Moul JW, Polascik TJ (2007) Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. Urology 69(2): 311–314
Muhlmann G, Klaus A, Kirchmayr W, Wykypiel H, Unger A, Holler E, Nehoda H, Aigner F, Weiss HG (2003) DaVinci robotic-assisted laparoscopic bariatric surgery: Is it justified in a routine setting? Obesity Surg 13(6):848–854
Muller-Stich BP, Reitr MA, Wente MN, Bintintan VV, Koninger J, Buchler MW, Gutt CN (2007) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 21(10):1800–1805
Nakadi IE, Melot C, Closset J, DeMoor V, Betroune K, Feron P, Lingier P, Gelin M (2006) Evaluation of da Vinci Nissen fundoplication clinical results and cost minimization. World J Surg 30(6):1050–1054
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, London
Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M et al. (2004) A review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modeling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 8(36):1–158
Pizzi L, Lofland JH (2006) Economic Evaluation in U.S. Healthcare: Principles and Applications. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Massachusetts, p. 16
Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP (2003) Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-care Evaluation. Wiley, Chichester
Tewari A, El-Hakim A, Leung RA (2006) Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 6(1):11–20
Tooher R, Pham C (2004) Technology Overview: da Vinci Surgical Robotic System. July 2004. Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures—Surgical (ASERNIP-S). Accessed on 1st Nov 2007 at: http://www. surgeons.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search_Asernips§ion =Technogy_overviews&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm& ContentFileID=7771
Tooher R, Swindle P, Woo H, Miller J, Maddern G (2006) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review of comparative studies. J Urol 175(6):2011–2017
TreeAge Prosuite (2007) TreeAge Software Inc. Accessed on 14th April 2008 at: http://www.treeage.com/products/overviewSuite. html
WHO (1998) Terminology—A glossary of technical terms on the economics and finance of health services. Regional Office for Europe, 1998 (document EUR/ICP/CARE0401/CN01)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wang, Q., Armstrong, D., McGuire, A. (2008). Health Economics of Robotic Surgery. In: Dasgupta, P. (eds) Urologic Robotic Surgery in Clinical Practice. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-243-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-243-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84800-242-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-84800-243-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)