nach oben

The European Journal of Health Economics

Erschienen in:

01.04.2016 | Original Paper

Opportunity cost in the economic evaluation of da Vinci robotic assisted surgery

verfasst von: Fernando Fuertes-Guiró, Montserrat Girabent-Farrés, Eduardo Viteri-Velasco

Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to demonstrate the importance of the opportunity cost in using da Vinci robotic surgery, assisted by a comprehensive review of the literature to determine the differences in the total cost of surgery and operative time in traditional laparoscopic surgery and da Vinci robotic surgery.

Methodology

We identified the studies comparing the use of traditional laparoscopic surgery with robotics during the period 2002–2012 in the electronic economic evaluation databases, and another electronic search was performed for publications by Spanish hospitals in the same period to calculate the opportunity cost. A meta-analysis of response variables considering the total cost of the intervention and surgical time was completed using the items selected in the first revision, and their differences were analyzed. We then calculated the opportunity cost represented by these time differences using the data obtained from the studies in the second review of the literature.

Results

Nine items were selected in the first review and three in the second. Traditional laparoscopic surgery has a lower cost than the da Vinci (p < 0.00001). Robotic surgery takes longer (8.0–65.5 min) than traditional surgery (p < 0.00001), and this difference represents an average opportunity cost for robot use of € 489.98, with a unit cost factor/time which varies according to the pathology dealt with, from € 8.2 to 18.7/min.

Conclusions

The opportunity cost is a quantity that must be included in the total cost of using a surgical technology within an economic cost analysis in the context of an economic evaluation.

Alemozaffar, M., Chang, S.L., Kacker, R., Sun, M., DeWolf, W.C., Wagner, A.A.: Comparing costs of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J. Endourol. (2013). doi:10.1089/end.2012.0462 PubMed

Baek, S., Kim, S., Cho, J., Shin, J., Kim, J.: Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a cost analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J. Surg. 36(11):2722–2729 (2012). doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1728-4

Barbash, G.I., Glied, S.A.: New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. (2010). doi:10.1056/NEJMp1006602 PubMed

Breitenstein, S., Nocito, A., Pithan, M., Held, U., Weber, M., Clavien, P.: Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy—outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann. Surg. (2008). doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e318172501f

Gimeno, J.A., Ullastres, J.A.G., Cebrián, S.R., Lorenzo, P.A.T.: Economía de la salud: fundamentos. Ediciones Díaz de Santos (2006)

El Nakadi, I., Melot, C., Closset, J., DeMoor, W., Betroune, K., Feron, P., Lingier, P., Gelin, M.: Evaluation of da Vinci Nissen fundoplication clinical results and cost minimization. World J. Surg. (2006). doi:10.1007/s00268-005-7950-6 PubMed

Evers, S., Goossens, M., de Vet, H., van Tulder, M., Ament, A.: Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 21(2), 240–245 (2005)PubMed

Gill, B., Griffin, B., Hesketh, B.: Changing expectations concerning life-extending treatment: the relevance of opportunity cost. Soc. Sci. Med. (2013). doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.040 PubMed

Chatterjee, A., Payette, M.J., Demas, C.P., Finlayson, S.R.G.: Opportunity cost: a systematic application to surgery. Surgery (2009). doi:10.1016/j.surg.2009.03.027 PubMed

10.

Ginsburg, P.B.: Election 2004: controlling health care costs. N. Engl. J. Med. (2004). doi:10.1056/NEJMp048159 PubMed

11.

Giri, S., Sarkar, D.K.: Current status of robotic surgery. Indian J. Surg. (2012). doi:10.1007/s12262-012-0595-4

12.

Goodman, C.S.: Introduction to health technology assessment. Retrieved from United States National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health website: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta101_c1.html (2004)

13.

Heemskerk, J., de Hoog, D.E.N.M., van Gemert, W.G., Baeten, C.G.M.I., Greve, J.W.M., Bouvy, N.D.: Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis. Colon Rectum 50(11):1825–1830 (2007). doi:10.1007/s10350-007-9017-2 PubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Herranz Amo, F., Subira Rios, D., Hernandez Fernandez, C., Martinez Salamanca, J.I., Monzo, J.I., Cabello Benavente, R.: Opened vs. laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in renal adenocarcinoma cost comparison. Actas. Urol. Esp. 30(9), 921–925 (2006)CrossRefPubMed

15.

Howard, D.H., Shen, Y.: Comparative effectiveness research, technological abandonment, and health care spending. Adv. Health Econ. Health Serv. Res. 23, 103–121 (2012)CrossRefPubMed

16.

Jenison, E.L., Gil, K.M., Lendvay, T.S., Guy, M.S.: Robotic surgical skills: acquisition, maintenance, and degradation. J. Soc. Laparoendosc. Surg. (2012). doi:10.4293/108680812X13427982376185

17.

Kilic, G.S., Walsh, T.M., Borahay, M., Zeybek, B., Wen, M., Breitkopf, D.: Effect of residents previous laparoscopic surgery experience on initial robotic suturing experience. ISRN Obstet. gynecol. (2012). doi:10.5402/2012/569456 PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Laupacis, A., Feeny, D., Detsky, A.S., Tugwell, P.X.: How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization—tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 146(4), 473–481 (1992)

19.

Lendvay, T.S., Hannaford, B., Satava, R.M.: Future of robotic surgery. Cancer J. (2013). doi:10.1097/PPO.0b013e31828bf822 PubMed

20.

McBrien, K.A., Manns, B.: Approach to economic evaluation in primary care. Review of a useful tool for primary care reform. Can. Fam. Physician 59(6), 619–627 (2013)PubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Mirheydar, H.S., Parsons, J.K.: Diffusion of robotics into clinical practice in the United States: process, patient safety, learning curves, and the public health. World J. Urol. (2013). doi:10.1007/s00345-012-1015-x PubMed

22.

Moreno-Sanz, C., Seoane-Gonzalez, J.B.: Experience with a Spanish-language laparoscopy website. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. (2006). doi:10.1089/lap.2006.16.33

23.

Morino, M., Pellegrino, L., Giaccone, C., Garrone, C., Rebecchi, F.: Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br. J. Surg. (2006). doi:10.1002/bjs.5325 PubMed

24.

Morino, M., Beninca, G., Giraudo, G., Del Genio, G.M., Rebecchi, F., Garrone, C.: Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg. Endosc. Other Interventional Tech. (2004). doi:10.1007/s00464-004-9046-z

25.

Olson, S.A., Obremskey, W.T., Bozic, K.J.: Healthcare technology: physician collaboration in reducing the surgical cost. Clin. Orthop. (2013). doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2828-7

26.

O’Reilly, D., Gaebel, K., Xie, F., Tarride, J., Goeree, R.: Health economic evaluations help inform payers of the best use of scarce health care resources. Int. J. Circumpolar. Health 70(4), 417–427 (2011)PubMed

27.

Ortega, J., Sala, C., Garcia, S., Lledo, S.: Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic vs open adrenalectomy: small savings in an expensive process. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech A (2002). doi:10.1089/109264202753486858 PubMed

28.

Palacios, A.G., Barrios, B., Taibo, M., Exposito, A., Zabala, A., J Gómez, Arias, S., Gutierrez, M.I., Iturburu, M.R., Martinez A.T.S I: Valor (Beneficio/Coste) de la Cirugía laparoscópica en contraste con la abierta. Comparación de costes. Kirurgia. 4(3):2–8 (2005)

29.

Platt, J.L., Cascalho, M.: New and old technologies for organ replacement. Curr. Opin. Organ Transplant. (2013). doi:10.1097/MOT.0b013e32835f0887 PubMed

30.

Pugin, F., Bucher, P., Morel, P.: History of robotic surgery: from AESOP (R) and ZEUS (R) to da Vinci (R). J. Visceral Surg. (2011). doi:10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2011.04.007

31.

Rawlings, A.L., Woodland, J.H., Vegunta, R.K., Crawford, D.L.: Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg. Endosc. Other Interventional Tech. (2007). doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9231-y

32.

Robinson, R.: Economic-evaluation and health-care—cost-effectiveness analysis. Br. Med. J. 307(6905):670–673 (1993)

33.

Sarlos, D., Kots, L.A.: Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. (2011). doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e328348a26e PubMed

34.

Sarlos, D., Kots, L., Stevanovic, N., Schaer, G.: Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. (2010). doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.012 PubMed

35.

Serra-Sastre, V., McGuire, A.: Technology diffusion in health care: conceptual aspects and evidence. In: McGuire, A., Costa-Font, J. (eds.) The LSE Companion to Health Policy. Elgar original reference. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 177–194 (2012). ISBN 9781781004234

36.

Sohn, W.L., Lee, H.J., Ahlering, T.E.: Robotic surgery: review of prostate and bladder cancer. Cancer J. 19(2), 133–139 (2013)CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Opportunity cost in the economic evaluation of da Vinci robotic assisted surgery
verfasst von: Fernando Fuertes-Guiró
Montserrat Girabent-Farrés
Eduardo Viteri-Velasco
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Elektronische ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0675-z

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Opportunity cost in the economic evaluation of da Vinci robotic assisted surgery

Abstract

Objective

Methodology

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methodology

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Cost-of-illness studies based on massive data: a prevalence-based, top-down regression approach

Switching health insurers: the role of price, quality and consumer information search

Economic evaluation of a telephone- and face-to-face-delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease

Differing types of medical prevention appeal to different individuals

Erratum to: Treatment costs of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Germany

A cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate gel for the treatment of actinic keratosis: a Scottish perspective