Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis.

Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 8806653 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1432-2218 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09302794 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Surg Endosc Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 1992- : New York : Springer
Original Publication: [Berlin] : Springer International, c1987-

Herniorrhaphy*/economics ; Herniorrhaphy*/methods ; Operative Time* ; Robotic Surgical Procedures*/economics ; Robotic Surgical Procedures*/instrumentation ; Robotic Surgical Procedures*/methods; Equipment and Supplies/*economics ; Hernia, Inguinal/*surgery; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Elective Surgical Procedures/economics ; Elective Surgical Procedures/methods ; Female ; Humans ; Laparoscopy/economics ; Laparoscopy/methods ; Length of Stay ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Outcome Assessment, Health Care

Background: Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery is still debatable. Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has no clear clinical benefit over laparoscopic repair. We performed a comprehensive cost-analysis comparison between the two approaches for evaluation of their cost-effectiveness in a large healthcare system in the Western United States.
Methods: Health records in 32 hospitals were queried for procedural costs of inguinal hernia repairs between January 2015 and March 2017. Elective robotic-assisted or laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repairs were included. Cost calculations were done using a utilization-based costing model. Total cost included: fixed cost, which comprises medical device and personnel costs, and variable cost, which comprises disposables and reusable instruments costs. Other outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), conversion to open, and operative times. Statistics were done using t test for continuous variables and χ ² test for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: A total of 2405 cases, 734 robotic-assisted (633 Primary: 101 recurrent) and 1671 laparoscopic (1471 Primary: 200 recurrent), were included. The average total cost was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the robotic-assisted group ($5517) compared to the laparoscopic group ($3269). However, the average laparoscopic variable cost ($1105) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the robotic-assisted cost ($933). Whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups for LOS and conversion to open, average operative times were significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis for primary and recurrent inguinal hernias matched the overall results.
Conclusions: Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has a significantly higher cost and significantly longer operative times, compared to the laparoscopic approach. The study has shown that only fixed cost contributes to the cost difference between the two approaches. Medical device cost plus the longer operative times are the main factors driving the cost difference. Laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is more cost-effective compared to a robotic-assisted approach.

World J Surg. 2002 Jun;26(6):748-59. (PMID: 12053232)
Hernia. 2004 Aug;8(3):196-202. (PMID: 15146352)
Am J Surg. 2004 Oct;188(4A Suppl):19S-26S. (PMID: 15476648)
World J Surg. 2006 Jun;30(6):1050-4. (PMID: 16736336)
J Surg Res. 2006 Dec;136(2):172-8. (PMID: 17059837)
Am J Surg. 2007 Mar;193(3):349-55; discussion 355. (PMID: 17320533)
Ann Surg. 2008 Jun;247(6):987-93. (PMID: 18520226)
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):701-4. (PMID: 20818872)
Obes Surg. 2012 Jan;22(1):52-61. (PMID: 21538177)
Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb;28(2):414-26. (PMID: 24196545)
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014 Dec;24(6):478-83. (PMID: 25054567)
Int J Clin Pract. 2014 Nov;68(11):1376-82. (PMID: 25283250)
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Feb;22(2):234-8. (PMID: 25315401)
Surg Endosc. 2015 Aug;29(8):2423-32. (PMID: 25318371)
Surg Endosc. 2015 Feb;29(2):253-88. (PMID: 25380708)
Surg Endosc. 2015 May;29(5):1231-9. (PMID: 25673344)
Obes Surg. 2015 Nov;25(11):2120-4. (PMID: 25893652)
Urol Int. 2016;96(3):287-94. (PMID: 26159050)
Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):4042-8. (PMID: 26718359)
J Robot Surg. 2016 Sep;10(3):239-44. (PMID: 27112781)
Surg Endosc. 2017 Jan;31(1):185-192. (PMID: 27139704)
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;215(5):588.e1-588.e7. (PMID: 27288987)
Am Surg. 2016 Oct;82(10):1014-1017. (PMID: 27779996)
Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):4085-4091. (PMID: 28271268)
J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;28(6):e82. (PMID: 29027400)
BJU Int. 2018 Mar;121(3):445-452. (PMID: 29032582)
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):2131-2136. (PMID: 29067575)
Am Surg. 2017 Dec 1;83(12):1418-1421. (PMID: 29336765)
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Sep - Oct;25(6):986-993. (PMID: 29360514)
J Robot Surg. 2018 Dec;12(4):625-632. (PMID: 29453731)
Curr Urol. 2017 Nov;11(1):36-41. (PMID: 29463975)
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Aug;33(8):1079-1086. (PMID: 29577170)

Keywords: Adoption; Cost analysis; Cost-effective; Inguinal hernia; Laparoscopic; Robotic-assisted

Date Created: 20181212 Date Completed: 20200518 Latest Revision: 20200518

20240829

10.1007/s00464-018-06606-9

30535936