Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorLarach, Jose Tomas
dc.contributor.authorFlynn, Julie
dc.contributor.authorTew, Michelle
dc.contributor.authorFernando, Diharah
dc.contributor.authorApte, Sameer
dc.contributor.authorMohan, Helen
dc.contributor.authorKong, Joseph
dc.contributor.authorMcCormick, Jacob J.
dc.contributor.authorWarrier, Satish K.
dc.contributor.authorHeriot, Alexander G.
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-20T20:10:49Z
dc.date.available2025-01-20T20:10:49Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractBackgroundAlthough several studies compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, most of them reflect the outcomes of the utilisation of older generation robotic platforms. The aim of this study is to compare the financial and clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy within a public healthcare system, utilising a multi-quadrant platform.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy between January 2017 and June 2020 in a public quaternary centre were included. Demographic characteristics, baseline clinical, tumour and operative variables, perioperative, histopathological outcomes and costs were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. Simple linear regression and generalised linear model analyses with gamma distribution and log-link function were used to determine the impact of the surgical approach on overall costs.ResultsDuring the study period, 113 patients underwent minimally invasive proctectomy. Of these, 81 (71.7%) underwent a robotic proctectomy. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate (2.5% versus 21.8%;P = 0.002) at the expense of longer operating times (284 +/- 83.4 versus 243 +/- 89.8 min;P = 0.025). Regarding financial outcomes, robotic surgery was associated with increased theatre costs (A$23,019 +/- 8235 versus A$15,525 +/- 6382; P < 0.001) and overall costs (A$34,350 +/- 14,770 versus A$26,083 +/- 12,647; P = 0.003). Hospitalisation costs were similar between both approaches. An ASA >= 3, non-metastatic disease, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, non-restorative resection, extended resection, and a robotic approach were identified as drivers of overall costs in the univariate analysis. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, a robotic approach was not identified as an independent driver of overall costs during the inpatient episode (P = 0.1).ConclusionRobotic proctectomy was associated with increased theatre costs but not with increased overall inpatient costs within a public healthcare setting. Conversion was less common for robotic proctectomy at the expense of increased operating time. Larger studies will be needed to confirm these findings and examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic proctectomy to further justify its penetration in the public healthcare system.
dc.description.funderCAUL
dc.fuente.origenWOS
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00384-023-04446-1
dc.identifier.eissn1432-1262
dc.identifier.issn0179-1958
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-023-04446-1
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/92098
dc.identifier.wosidWOS:001003163300002
dc.issue.numero1
dc.language.isoen
dc.revistaInternational journal of colorectal disease
dc.rightsacceso restringido
dc.subjectRobotic
dc.subjectLaparoscopic
dc.subjectColorectal
dc.subjectProctectomy
dc.subjectCosts
dc.subjectEconomic outcomes
dc.subject.ods03 Good Health and Well-being
dc.subject.odspa03 Salud y bienestar
dc.titleRobotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumen38
sipa.indexWOS
sipa.trazabilidadWOS;2025-01-12
Files
Collections
Artículos de revistas