» Articles » PMID: 28508348

Cost Analysis of Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Performed by a Single Surgeon in an Italian Center: an Update in Gynecologic Oncological Field

Overview
Journal Updates Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2017 May 17
PMID 28508348
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The objective of this study is to perform an economic analysis and examine the influence of procedural volume of our hospital, evaluating the accounting systems of Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) in patients with cervical carcinoma, due to the costs widely variable and lack in literature. Costs were collected prospectively, from March 2010 to March 2016. Direct costs were determined by examining the overall medical pathway for each type of intervention. 52 patients with cervical carcinoma, which were matched by age, body mass index, tumor size, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, comorbidity, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histology type, and tumor grade to obtain homogeneous samples. Surgical time was similar for both the groups. RRH was associated with a significantly less (EBL) estimated blood loss (P = 0.000). The overall median length of follow-up was of 59 months. The cost of the robot-specific supplies was €2705 per intervention. When considering overall medical surgical care, the patient treatment average cost of an RRH was €5650,31 with an hospital stay (HS) of 3.58 days (SD ± 1) vs €3750.86 for TRLH, with an HS of 4.27 days (SD ± 1.79). Our results are similar to Finnish data; the costs of robot-assisted hysterectomies were 1.5 times higher than TLRH. The main drivers of additional costs are robotic disposable instruments, which are not compensated by the hospital room costs and by an experienced team staff. Implementation of strategies to reduce the cost of robotic instrumentation is due. RRH resulted less expensive than robotic simple hysterectomy for benign conditions.

Citing Articles

Four-handed Technique for Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: An Italian Experience.

Nicoli P, Biffi A, Boca G, Vitagliano A, Silvestris E, Loizzi V Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2024; 13(3):161-167.

PMID: 39184247 PMC: 11343349. DOI: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_50_23.


Robotic Lateral Pelvic Organ Prolapse Suspension of Multicompartment Vaginal Prolapse.

Pellegrino A, Villa M, Cesana M, Perrone A, Malvasi A, Loizzi V Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023; 12(1):44-45.

PMID: 37025440 PMC: 10071865. DOI: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_97_21.


Radical Hysterectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Bulky-Size Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis between the Robotic and Abdominal Approaches.

Liu C, Lee Y, Lin J, Chan I, Lee N, Chang W Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(20).

PMID: 31614465 PMC: 6843229. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16203833.

References
1.
Dennis T, de Mendonca C, Phalippou J, Collinet P, Boulanger L, Weingertner F . [Study of surplus cost of robotic assistance for radical hysterectomy, versus laparotomy and standard laparoscopy]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2012; 40(2):77-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2011.09.010. View

2.
Pellegrino A, Damiani G, Terruzzi M, Strippoli D, Bigi L . Robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal deep pelvic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma of the lower limb: initial report of four cases and outcomes at 1-year follow-up. Updates Surg. 2013; 65(4):339-40. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-013-0206-3. View

3.
Pellegrino A, Damiani G, Fachechi G, Corso S, Pirovano C, Trio C . Cost analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy vs open approach performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center. J Robot Surg. 2016; 11(2):115-121. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0625-5. View

4.
Vitale S, Gasbarro N, Lagana A, Sapia F, Rapisarda A, Valenti G . Safe introduction of ancillary trocars in gynecological surgery: the "yellow island" anatomical landmark. Ann Ital Chir. 2016; 87:608-611. View

5.
Bellia A, Vitale S, Lagana A, Cannone F, Houvenaeghel G, Rua S . Feasibility and surgical outcomes of conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopy for early-stage ovarian cancer: a retrospective, multicenter analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016; 294(3):615-22. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-016-4087-9. View