Graduate school of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, N12-W5, Kitaku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Department of Renal and Genitourinary Surgery Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, N14, W5, KitaKu, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
BMC Urol. 2019 Nov 8;19(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0533-x.
Robot-assisted radical cystectomy is becoming a common treatment for bladder carcinoma. However, in comparison with open radical cystectomy, its cost-effectiveness has not been confirmed. Although few published reviews have compared total costs between the two surgical procedures, no study has compared segmental costs and explained their impact on total costs.
A systematic review was conducted based on studies on the segmental costs of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical cystectomy using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to provide insight into cost-effective management methods for radical cystectomy. The segmental costs included operating, robot-related, complication, and length of stay costs. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact of the annual number of cases on the per-case robot-related costs.
We identified two studies that compared open and laparoscopic surgeries and nine that compared open and robotic surgeries. Open radical cystectomy costs were higher than those of robotic surgeries in two retrospective single-institution studies, while robot-assisted radical cystectomy costs were higher in 1 retrospective single-institution study, 1 randomized controlled trial, and 4 large database studies. Operating costs were higher for robotic surgery, and accounted for 63.1-70.5% of the total robotic surgery cost. Sensitivity analysis revealed that robot-related costs were not a large proportion of total surgery costs in institutions with a large number of cases but accounted for a large proportion of total costs in centers with a small number of cases.
The results show that robot-assisted radical cystectomy is more expensive than open radical cystectomy. The most effective methods to decrease costs associated with robotic surgery include a decrease in operating time and an increase in the number of cases. Further research is required on the cost-effectiveness of surgeries, including quality measures such as quality of life and quality-adjusted life years.
机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术正成为治疗膀胱癌的常用方法。然而,与开放性根治性膀胱切除术相比,其成本效益尚未得到证实。尽管少数已发表的综述比较了两种手术的总费用,但没有研究比较分段成本并解释其对总费用的影响。
我们通过检索 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中关于开放性、腹腔镜和机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术分段成本的研究,进行了系统评价,旨在为根治性膀胱切除术的成本效益管理方法提供深入了解。分段成本包括手术、机器人相关、并发症和住院时间成本。进行敏感性分析以确定年度病例数对每例机器人相关成本的影响。
我们确定了两项比较开放性和腹腔镜手术的研究,以及九项比较开放性和机器人手术的研究。在两项回顾性单机构研究中,开放性根治性膀胱切除术的成本高于机器人手术,而在一项回顾性单机构研究、一项随机对照试验和四项大型数据库研究中,机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的成本更高。手术成本更高的机器人手术,占机器人手术总费用的 63.1-70.5%。敏感性分析表明,在病例数较多的机构中,机器人相关成本不是总手术成本的主要部分,但在病例数较少的中心,机器人相关成本占总费用的很大比例。
结果表明,机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术比开放性根治性膀胱切除术更昂贵。降低机器人手术相关成本的最有效方法包括缩短手术时间和增加病例数。需要进一步研究手术的成本效益,包括生活质量和质量调整生命年等质量指标。