A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions.

In order to assess the effectiveness and costs of robot-assisted hysterectomy compared with conventional techniques we reviewed the literature separately for benign and malignant conditions, and conducted a cost analysis for different techniques of hysterectomy from a hospital economic database. Unlimited systematic literature search of Medline, Cochrane and CRD databases produced only two randomized trials, both for benign conditions. For the outcome assessment, data from two HTA reports, one systematic review, and 16 original articles were extracted and analyzed. Furthermore, one cost modelling and 13 original cost studies were analyzed. In malignant conditions, less blood loss, fewer complications and a shorter hospital stay were considered as the main advantages of robot-assisted surgery, like any mini-invasive technique when compared to open surgery. There were no significant differences between the techniques regarding oncological outcomes. When compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy, the main benefit of robot-assistance was a shorter learning curve associated with fewer conversions but the length of robotic operation was often longer. In benign conditions, no clinically significant differences were reported and vaginal hysterectomy was considered the optimal choice when feasible. According to Finnish data, the costs of robot-assisted hysterectomies were 1.5-3 times higher than the costs of conventional techniques. In benign conditions the difference in cost was highest. Because of expensive disposable supplies, unit costs were high regardless of the annual number of robotic operations. Hence, in the current distribution of cost pattern, economical effectiveness cannot be markedly improved by increasing the volume of robotic surgery.

Tapper AM ，Hannola M ，Zeitlin R ，Isojärvi J ，Sintonen H ，Ikonen TS ... -  《-》

A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy.

To investigate the hospital cost and short-term clinical outcome of traditional minimally invasive hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy in women primarily not considered candidates for vaginal surgery. Randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). University Hospital in Sweden. One hundred twenty-two women with uterine size ≤ 16 gestational weeks scheduled to undergo minimally invasive hysterectomy because of benign disease. Robot-assisted hysterectomy or traditional vaginal or laparoscopic minimally invasive hysterectomy. All women underwent surgery as randomized. There were no demographic differences between the 2 groups. Vaginal hysterectomy was possible in 41% in the traditional minimally invasive group, at a mean hospital cost of $4579 compared with $7059 for traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. This was reflected in a mean hospital cost of $993 more per robotic-assisted hysterectomy than for traditional minimally invasive hysterectomy when the robot was a preexisting investment. This hospital cost increased by $1607 when including investments and cost of maintenance. A per-protocol subanalysis comparing laparoscopy and robotics demonstrated similar hospital cost when the robot was a preexisting investment ($7059 vs $7016). Robotic-assisted hysterectomy was associated with less blood loss and fewer postoperative complications. A similar hospital cost can be attained for laparoscopy and robotics when the robot is a preexisting investment. From the perspective of hospital costs, robotic-assisted hysterectomy is not advantageous for treating benign conditions when a vaginal approach is feasible in a high proportion of patients.

Lönnerfors C ，Reynisson P ，Persson J 《-》

Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study.

Robotic surgery, with its technical advances, promises to open a new window to minimally invasive surgery in gynaecology. Feasibility and safety of this surgical innovation have been demonstrated in several studies, and now a critical analysis of these new developments regarding outcome and costs is in place. So far only a few studies compare robotic with conventional laparoscopic surgery in gynaecology. Our objective was to evaluate our initial experience performing total robot-assisted hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system and compare peri-operative outcome and costs with total laparoscopic hysterectomy. For this prospective matched case-control study at our institution, peri-operative data from our first 40 consecutive total robot-assisted hysterectomies for benign indications were recorded and matched 1:1 with total laparoscopic hysterectomies according to age, BMI and uterus weight. Surgical costs were calculated for both procedures. Surgeons' subjective impressions of robotics were evaluated with a self-developed questionnaire. No conversions to laparotomy or severe peri-operative complications occurred. Mean operating time was 109 (113; 50-170) min for the robotic group and 83 (80; 55-165) min for the conventional laparoscopic group. Mean postoperative hospitalisation for robotic surgery was 3.3 (3; 2-6) days versus 3.9 (4; 2-7) days for the conventional laparoscopic group. Average surgical cost of a robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy was 4067 euros compared to 2151 euros for the conventional laparoscopic procedure at our institution. For the robotic group wider range of motion of the instruments and better ergonomics were considered to be an advantage, and lack of direct access to the patient was stated as a disadvantage. Robot-assited hysterectomy is a feasible and interesting new technique with comparable outcome to total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Operating times of total laparoscopic hysterectomy seem to be achieved quickly especially for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. However, costs of robotic surgery are still higher than for conventional laparoscopy. Randomised clinical trials need to be conducted to further evaluate benefits of this new technology for patients and surgeons and analyse its cost-effectiveness in gynaecology.

Sarlos D ，Kots L ，Stevanovic N ，Schaer G ... -  《-》

Cost-analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for women with endometrial cancer and atypical complex hyperplasia.

The aim of this study was to analyse the hospital cost of treatment with robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy for women with endometrial cancer or atypical complex hyperplasia and to identify differences in resource use and cost. This cost analysis was based on two cohorts: women treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (n = 202) or with total abdominal hysterectomy (n = 158) at Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. We conducted an activity-based cost analysis including consumables and healthcare professionals' salaries. As cost-drivers we included severe complications, duration of surgery, anesthesia and stay at the post-anesthetic care unit, as well as number of hospital bed-days. Ordinary least-squares regression was used to explore the cost variation. The primary outcome was cost difference in Danish kroner between total abdominal hysterectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. The average cost of consumables was 12,642 Danish kroner more expensive per patient for robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy than for total abdominal hysterectomy (2014 price level: 1€ = 7.50 Danish kroner). When including all cost-drivers, the analysis showed that the robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure was 9386 Danish kroner (17%) cheaper than the total abdominal hysterectomy (p = 0.003). When the robot investment was included, the cost difference reduced to 4053 Danish kroner (robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy was 7% cheaper than total abdominal hysterectomy) (p = 0.20). Increasing age and Type 2 diabetes appeared to influence the overall costs. For women with endometrial cancer or atypical complex hyperplasia, robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy was cheaper than total abdominal hysterectomy, mostly due to fewer complications and shorter length of hospital stay.

Herling SF ，Palle C ，Møller AM ，Thomsen T ，Sørensen J ... -  《-》

Approaches for hysterectomy and implementation of robot-assisted surgery in benign gynaecological disease: A cost analysis study in a large university hospital.

As a minimally invasive technique, robot-assisted hysterectomy (RAH) offers surgical advantages and significant reduction in morbidity compared to open surgery. Despite the increasing use of RAH in benign gynaecology, there is limited data on its cost-effectiveness, especially in a European context. Our goal is to assess the costs of the different hysterectomy approaches, to describe their clinical outcomes, and to evaluate the impact of introduction of RAH on the rates of different types of hysterectomy. A retrospective single-centre cost-analysis was performed for patients undergoing a hysterectomy for benign indications. Abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and RAH were included. We considered the costs of operating room and hospital stay for the different hysterectomy techniques using the "Activity Centre-Care program model". We report on intra- and postoperative complications for the different approaches as well as their cost relationship. Between January 2014 and December 2021, 830 patients were operated; 67 underwent VH (8%), 108 LAVH (13%), 351 LH (42%), 148 RAH (18%) and 156 AH (19%). After the implementation and learning curve of a dedicated program for RAH in 2018, AH declined from 27.3% in 2014-2017, to 22.1% in 2018 and 6.9 % in 2019-2021. The reintervention rate was 3-4% for all surgical techniques. Pharmacological interventions and blood transfusions were performed after AH in 28%, and in 17-22% of the other approaches. AH had the highest hospital stay cost with an average of €2236.40. Mean cost of the hospital stay ranged from €1136.77-€1560.66 for minimally invasive techniques. The average total costs for RAH were €6528.10 compared to €4400.95 for AH. Implementation of RAH resulted in a substantial decrease of open surgery rate. However, RAH remains the most expensive technique in our cohort, mainly due to high material and depreciation costs. Therefore, RAH should not be considered for every patient, but for those who would otherwise need more invasive surgery, with higher risk of complications. Future prospective studies should focus on the societal costs and patient reported outcomes, in order to do cost-benefit analysis and further evaluate the exact value of RAH in the current healthcare setting.

Delameilleure M ，Timmerman S ，Vandoren C ，Ledger A ，Vansteenkiste N ，Dewilde K ，Page AS ，Housmans S ，Van den Bosch T ，Deprest J ，Froyman W ... -  《-》