Abstract
The use of robotic colorectal (CR) surgery has been increasing steadily, especially for proctectomy. Although controversy over improved results compared to other conventional approaches still exists, one of the most commonly reported drawbacks of robotics is its high procedure-related cost.
However, economic analysis of robotic CR surgery is limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of the available data and by the poor and inadequate methodological quality of previous studies. Therefore, a more comprehensive analysis of the cost-effectiveness of robotic CR surgery should take into account different factors including those strictly related to the operating room costs and those related to the clinical outcomes. On this basis, according to the latest evidence from the literature, although robotic colectomy seems not to be cost-effective compared with laparoscopic colectomy, robotic proctectomy may prove cost-effective if modest differences in operating costs or postoperative length of stay can be achieved. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the current state of costs in robotic CR surgery considering some objective preliminary aspects and providing future perspectives.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Robotics
- Robotic-assisted surgery
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Cost-utility analysis
- Laparoscopic surgery
- Colon surgery
- Rectal surgery
- Colectomy
- Proctectomy
1 Introduction
Robotic surgery (RS) has gained popularity since the introduction of da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, USA) in the year 2000, representing a revolution for surgical practice and minimally invasive surgery. Thanks to their well-known technological improvements [1], robotic systems are being used in a wide variety of procedures including colorectal (CR) surgery. Several studies have been published to describe the safety and efficacy of RS in CR surgery and promising benefits of robotics over other alternative conventional approaches (i.e., laparoscopic or open) have been reported [2,3,4]. Hence, the technical advantages of robotic systems should theoretically allow expansion of the minimally invasive approach in the field of CR surgery. However, some concerns have been raised about the use of this new technology, in particular about its real clinical benefits [2, 5] in comparison with its supposed higher costs.
The aim of this chapter is to analyze the current state of costs in robotic CR surgery using da Vinci surgical system.
2 Preliminary Considerations
Because Intuitive Surgical supplies most robotic technology, current costs in robotic CR surgery are evaluated considering da Vinci system on the market. However, before going into the subject, a few general aspects should be considered.
-
In 2000, the US Food and Drug Administration cleared the da Vinci for general laparoscopic surgery. Currently, the da Vinci surgical system is, with 7135 installed systems worldwide, the most used platform [6]. Intuitive Surgical markets its products through a direct sales force in the United States, Europe (excluding Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and most Eastern European countries), China, Japan, South Korea, India, and Taiwan [7].
The different mode of distribution of the robotic system among countries (direct vs. indirect) represents itself the first limitation when analyzing RS costs.
-
When a hospital is considering the acquisition of robotic system, an accurate assessment of the total cost of ownership (CoO) should be an integral part of the technology acquisition equation. The CoO assessment should include all relevant fixed and variable cost components:
-
Fixed costs include implementation and maintenance costs. Currently, there are five available versions of the da Vinci, with an average sales price of $1.47 million and a yearly average service contract cost of $154,000 [7]. Moreover, there are different purchasing methods, such as installment and leasing.
-
Variable costs include da Vinci and non-da Vinci supplies; operating room time based on surgical case time, divided into cut-to-close time and patient- in-room time; operating room personnel costs; hospital stay costs, which include length of stay (LoS) in both the intensive care unit and the general ward, costs of reoperation, and postoperative procedures. The impact of surgeon learning curves is another variable cost that should be called out, given that learning curves can lead to a cost per case being overstated together with case mix by service line and annual robotic case volume. Moreover, instrument use and surgeon instrument preferences are another contributor to cost and associated variability.
Hospitals use a variety of approaches to robotic cost accounting, making it difficult to determine accurate CoO assessments across hospitals [8].
-
-
Health technology assessment is used when a new technology is being introduced into clinical practice. Economic evaluation should not only consider fixed and variable costs, but also the benefits from the different aspects related to patient treatment, such as LoS, complications, readmission or oncological outcomes. To date, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) are the most commonly used economic evaluation frameworks for international health technology institutions [9].
Currently, few studies have performed a complete economic evaluation of robotic CR surgery [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. There is a role for methodologically sound observational studies that should focus on the development, exploration and assessment [17] of robotic CR procedures to examine clinically relevant patient-important outcomes rather than surrogate measures [5].
-
Reimbursement to the hospital for utilization of the robot and hospitalization expenses are also in straight correlation with the health care system. Since 1978 Italy has a universalistic national health system (NHS). The 1992 reform of the NHS introduced a system of remuneration of prospective hospitals, based on the classification of the Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG). In 2011 the new It-DRG that includes the Italian Classification of Procedures and Interventions (CIPI) was introduced with the aim of reducing the costs for the NHS [18]. However, to date there are no differences for laparoscopic or RS, although in the proposed new CIPI at least 30 procedures will be classified as robotic-assisted [19]. Currently, only Lombardy, Tuscany and Veneto have approved an additional compensation dedicated to RS with substantial differences.
Differences between countries, private or public sectors render any approach to evaluate cost data complex. The use of the laparoscopic or robotic approach generates an increase in variable costs mostly without changing revenues.
On this basis, the current evidence of the costs of the application of robotics in CR surgery is reported as follows.
3 Costs in Robotic Colon Surgery
In agreement with another previous publication [20], a recent study evaluating the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy based on modeled analysis of the published literature found that laparoscopic and robotic colectomy result in more quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and lower cost than the open approach [13]. The authors underline that, with more than 50% of colectomies still being performed using an open approach in the U.S.A., this finding represents an important opportunity for improving the value of colectomy delivered across the country. This consideration might be translated also to Italy’s system where, according to the National Outcomes Programme (Programma Nazionale Esiti, PNE), 46.6% of all colectomies were performed laparoscopically in the period 2015–2020, with a median LoS of 7 days [21].
Robotic colectomy is not currently cost-effective by any of the conventional standards used in cost-effectiveness studies, but it can surpass laparoscopy by achieving better quality of life (QoL) after surgery and lowering disposables costs, LoS, time off work, and hernia rates. However, it remains unclear whether RS can achieve improvements of this magnitude [13].
Focusing on right colectomy, in all [16, 22, 23] but one [24] of the most recent cost analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic right colectomy, operating time (OT), total operating room and hospital costs were higher for the robotic cases compared with laparoscopy, although the difference was not significant in any of the series. These outcomes are in agreement with those reported by a previous meta-analysis [25].
Currently, robotic right colectomy does not provide any significant clinical advantage likely to justify the additional costs, and should probably be used with appropriate clinical justification in high-volume centers with a standardized surgical protocol [26].
4 Cost in Robotic Rectal Surgery
Robotic rectal surgery is more expensive than laparoscopic surgery especially in terms of its high capital, amortization, recurrent costs and longer OT [11, 12, 27,28,29,30].
Interesting findings have been reported by two recently published papers. A monocentric cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection showed for the first time an apparent improvement in the QoL of the patients in favor of the robotic group [14]. Simianu et al. have recently examined the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to proctectomy from a societal and healthcare system perspective [15]. One important finding of this study is that an open approach is less cost-effective than both minimally invasive techniques. Since approximately 50% of surgery for rectal cancer continues to be open in Italy [31], the proportion of operations carried out with a minimally invasive approach should be increased.
Robotic proctectomy can be cost-effective if modest differences in costs of the operation (such as OT and use of disposables), LoS and time off work can be achieved [15]. In the societal model, reducing the cost of disposables for RS by as little as $400 or achieving a shorter mean duration of robotic cases (by as little as 20 min) could make robotic proctectomy cost-effective.
Recently, a Chinese trial has reported for the first time advantages of RS in improving the oncological quality of resection for middle and low rectal cancer compared with laparoscopy [4]. The robotic group had significantly higher total hospitalization costs but significantly lower postoperative costs which might be associated with lower postoperative morbidity.
Future studies should be conducted for accurate assessment of the already promising functional outcomes provided by RS. However, in rectal cancer surgery, it is particularly important to put surgery-related costs into perspective considering that the most significant cost drivers are oncological and outpatient workup/follow-up treatments irrespective of surgical approach [32].
5 How Can Robotic Colorectal Surgery Become Cost-Effective?
Several efforts can be made to decrease variable costs:
-
use of the robotic platform in a multidisciplinary high-volume center can reduce the extra costs per procedure [33] and may also help to obtain discounts on the purchase costs of robotic instruments [34];
-
surgeon’s experience and programmatic standardization (technique, case time, team performance metrics) can contribute to reduce the number of disposables used in each operation and the OT [8, 11, 12, 15]. Moreover, since the beginning of 2021 there has been an evolution of robotic instruments that allowed the number of uses to be extended to eighteen times while keeping the price of each instrument unchanged [34];
-
especially for robotic rectal cancer surgery, a decreased conversion rate to open surgery and related morbidity and LoS (linked to an enhanced recovery program) can therefore reduce hospital charges [3, 33, 35].
Since RS has considerable potential to improve and advance surgical care, institutions with the ability to prioritize research over pure cost containment may promptly adopt robotics to improve patient outcomes [36].
Finally, the robotic surgical procedure market is expanding. Outside of the current monopoly system, there are several robotic platforms [37] that are entering the marketplace. Exactly what effect this competition will have on the cost-effectiveness of robotics remains to be determined.
References
Marohn MR, Hanly EJ. Twenty-first century surgery using twenty-first century technology: surgical robotics. Curr Surg. 2004;61(5):466–73.
Prete FP, Pezzolla A, Prete F, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2018;267(6):1034–46.
Ricciardi R, Goldstone RN, Francone T, et al. Healthcare resource utilization after surgical treatment of cancer: value of minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(10):7549–50.
Feng Q, Yuan W, Li T, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7(11):991–1004.
Muaddi H, Hafid ME, Choi WJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of robotic surgery compared to conventional surgical approaches (laparoscopic or open): a systematic overview of reviews. Ann Surg. 2021;273(3):467–73.
Intuitive Surgical. Intuitive announces first quarter earnings. April 21, 2022. https://isrg.intuitive.com/node/19016/pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.
Intuitive Surgical. Annual report 2021. https://isrg.intuitive.com/static-files/704322bf-cb0d-4ed1-954c-8eb46a070f70. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.
Feldstein J, Schwander B, Roberts M, Coussons H. Cost of ownership assessment for a da Vinci robot based on US real-world data. Int J Med Robot. 2019;15(5):e2023.
Bai F, Li M, Han J, et al. More work is needed on cost-utility analyses of robotic-assisted surgery. J Evid Based Med. 2022;15(2):77–96.
Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(3):598–606.
Morelli L, Guadagni S, Lorenzoni V, et al. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon’s experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31(9):1639–48.
Morelli L, Di Franco G, Lorenzoni V, et al. Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon’s experience. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(6):1858–69.
Simianu VV, Gaertner WB, Kuntz K, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic versus robotic minimally invasive colectomy. Ann Surg. 2020;272(2):334–41.
Quijano Y, Nuñez-Alfonsel J, Ielpo B, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative cost-effectiveness study. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24(3):247–54.
Simianu VV, Curran T, Gaertner WB, et al. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of surgical approaches to proctectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(6):1512–23.
Ferri V, Quijano Y, Nuñez J, et al. Robotic-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(1):115–23.
McCulloch P, Feinberg J, Philippou Y, et al. Progress in clinical research in surgery and IDEAL. Lancet. 2018;392(10141):88–94.
Nonis M, Bertinato L, Arcangeli L, et al. The evolution of DRG system in Italy: the It-DRG project. Eur J Pub Health. 2018;28(suppl_4):440–1.
Arcangeli L, Banchelli F, Bertinato L, et al. Progetto It.DRG: stato dell’arte. Rapporti ISTISAN 18/12. Istituto Superiore di Sanità; 2019. https://www.reteclassificazioni.it/upload/news/1544450686.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.
Chiu CC, Hsu WT, Choi JJ, et al. Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(11):3757–65.
Programma Nazionale Esiti (edizione 2022). Intervento chirurgico per tumore maligno – colon: interventi in laparoscopia [Italian National Healthcare Outcomes Programme (2022 edition). Surgery for malignant tumor – colon: laparoscopic procedures]. https://pne.agenas.it/risultati/tipo5/intr_struasl5_HC.php?ind=86&tipo=5&area=6. Accessed 3 Feb 2023.
Hopkins MB, Hawkins AT, Tiwari V, et al. Is newer always better? Comparing cost and short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(5):2879–85.
Merola G, Sciuto A, Pirozzi F, et al. Is robotic right colectomy economically sustainable? A multicentre retrospective comparative study and cost analysis. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(9):4041–7.
Ahmadi N, Mor I, Warner R. Comparison of outcome and costs of robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomies. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(2):429–36.
Solaini L, Bazzocchi F, Cavaliere D, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1104–10.
Hancock KJ, Klimberg VS, Nunez-Lopez O, et al. Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(1):107–12.
Kim CW, Baik SH, Roh YH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes: a propensity score-matching analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(22):e823.
Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569–80.
Chen ST, Wu MC, Hsu TC, et al. Comparison of outcome and cost among open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117(3):497–505.
Ezeokoli EU, Hilli R, Wasvary HJ. Index cost comparison of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery in colon and rectal cancer resection: a retrospective financial investigation of surgical methodology innovation at a single institution. Tech Coloproctol. 2022;27(1):63–8.
Programma Nazionale Esiti (edizione 2022). Intervento chirurgico per tumore maligno – retto: interventi in laparoscopia [Italian National Healthcare Outcomes Programme (2022 edition). Surgery for malignant tumor – rectum: laparoscopic procedures]. https://pne.agenas.it/risultati/tipo5/intr_struasl5_HC.php?ind=87&tipo=5&area=6. Accessed 3 Feb 2023.
Grass F, Merchea A, Mathis KL, et al. Cost drivers of locally advanced rectal cancer treatment—an analysis of a leading healthcare insurer. J Surg Oncol. 2021;123(4):1023–9.
Patel S, Rovers MM, Sedelaar MJP, et al. How can robot-assisted surgery provide value for money? BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2021;3(1):e000042.
Di Franco G, Lorenzoni V, Palmeri M, et al. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(6):4417–28.
Cleary RK, Mullard AJ, Ferraro J, Regenbogen SE. The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1515–24.
Gomolin A, Gotlieb W, Lau S, et al. Mandate to evaluate robotic surgery implementation: a 12-year retrospective analysis of impact and future implications. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(4):783–8.
Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, et al. Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(4):1636–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material derived from this chapter or parts of it.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marano, A., Borghi, F. (2024). Costs in Robotic Colorectal Surgery. In: Ceccarelli, G., Coratti, A. (eds) Robotic Surgery of Colon and Rectum. Updates in Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33020-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33020-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-33019-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-33020-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)