This article forms part of a Point/Counterpoint discussion on robotic surgery.
The shorter length-of-stay and decreased transfusion rates could lead to decreased perioperative costs of robotic procedures, but, if so, the differences are not sufficient for robotic technology to provide overall savings. 13–18 The initial trials for robotic cystectomy have demonstrated similar results, but long-term outcomes are still largely unknown, and further investigation is required. By increasing the share of nephron-sparing procedures for surgical extirpation of renal masses, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is likely to confer increased value, compared with nonrobotic surgery.19 Although robotic surgery has experienced huge growth, the evidence that it meets the objectives of adding value to health care for all procedures is not convincing. Instead, robotic surgery might add value only in select cases (such as partial nephrectomy), and its use in other situations could place a large cost burden on society.
Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share? Deborah R. Kaye, Jeffrey K. Mullins, H. Ballentine Carter and Trinity J. Bivalacqua Abstract | Surgical robotic use has grown exponentially in spite of limited or uncertain benefits and large costs. In certain situations, adoption of robotic technology provides value to patients and society. In other cases, however, the robot provides little or no increase in surgical quality, with increased expense, and, therefore, does not add value to health care. The surgical robot is expensive to purchase, maintain and operate, and can contribute to increased consumerism in relation to surgical procedures, and increased reliance on the technology, thus driving future increases in health-care expenditure. Given the current need for budget constraints, the cost-effectiveness of specific procedures must be evaluated. The surgical robot should be used when cost-effective, but traditional open and laparoscopic techniques also need to be continually fostered. Kaye, D. R. et al. Nat. Rev. Urol. 12, 55–60 (2015); published online 23 December 2014; doi:10.1038/nrurol.2014.339
Use of the surgical robot has seen exponential growth in spite of uncertain or limited benefits. From 2007 to 2010, the number of robotic surgeries worldwide nearly tripled, and da Vinci®robot installation increased by 75% in the USA.1 According to an estimate based on the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) accounted for 5.6% of all prostatectomies in 2005, increasing to 60% in 2009, and the robotic technology is associated with excess spending of greater than US$4 million per year nationally.2–5 Although some benefits have been achieved in short-term outcomes for robot-assisted prostatectomy (shorter hospital stays, decreased blood loss and decreased postoperative complications), quality-of-life data are mixed, no differences have been observed in oncologic outcomes and costs are substantial.6–8 Patients who undergo robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) are more likely to be dis satisfied with their outcomes than patients who undergo an open radical prostatectomy (ORP).9,10 However, although robotic technology offers limited benefits for radical prostatectomy and uncertain benefits for Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
radical cystectomy, it probably facilitates nephron-sparing surgery for treatment of kidney cancer. Although the benefits are moderate, costs associated with robotic surgery are great. In 2007, Barbash et al.1 demonstrated that, on average, the additional variable expenses associated with robot-assisted approaches were $1,600 (a 6% increase) per procedure compared with open surgery, rising to $3,200 (a 13% increase) if the price of the robot was taken into consideration. The authors further concluded that, if robotic technology completely replaced traditional surgery, nearly $2.5 billion would be added to health-care costs.1 This estimate includes the cost of the technology, but does not include expenses incurred as a result of unnecessary procedures.11 Value in health care is defined as health outcome per dollar spent. 12 In order for a technology to add value to the healthcare system, it needs to either improve outcomes or be associated with decreased expenditure. Few studies have shown any differences in outcomes for robotic prostatectomy that would translate into substantial savings. However, it should be noted that some of the series compare early experience in robotic surgery with more mature experience in open surgery.
NATURE REVIEWS | UROLOGY
Increased costs associated with the use of robotics are derived from a combination of greater procedural expenses (both fixed and variable) per operation, and the use of advanced technologies to conduct operations in patients who are least likely to benefit from surgical intervention.11 Fixed costs are associated with purchasing and maintaining the robot, the use of disposable equipment and base operating-room costs. Variable costs include those associated with the length of a procedure (such as staffing and operating-room expenses), hospital length-of-stay, transfusion requirements, complications, convalescence, time required off work, additional procedures and medications. Konety et al.18 demonstrated that the median cost of a complication after cystectomy is $15,000, and that every complication, except for a haematoma, significantly increases hospital costs and length-of-stay. Robotic surgery has high fixed outlays and, therefore, must have substantially lower variable charges to provide overall savings. A monopoly currently exists in the market for the supply of surgical robots, whereas competition might result in a fall in the fixed costs. Savings have yet to be realized for most procedures, even in the most experienced centres of robotic surgery.13–18 VOLUME 12 | JANUARY 2015 | 55
PERSPECTIVES Even when procedural costs are similar, increased use of unnecessary procedures places a cost burden on society. Perceived differences in postoperative recovery and outcomes drive increased demand from patients for robotic surgery rather than for alternative surgical or nonsurgical options, active surveillance or watchful waiting. Since 2005, the prostatectomy rate has increased despite a decrease in the incidence of prostate cancer.1,20 Much of this increase has involved patients >65 years old, who, in 2007, were 14% more likely to undergo surgery than their counterparts 3 years earlier, suggesting that the availability of robotic technology has created excess demand for surgery, when nonoperative management could have had equivalent or better outcomes. 1,20 Treatment with advanced technologies, including RARP, has increased among those least likely to benefit.11
Use of the surgical robot has seen exponential growth in spite of uncertain or limited benefits
Factors such as improved visibility of the surgical site, surgeon comfort, instrument stability and precision combined with a good range of motion and a shorter learning curve than for laparoscopic surgery have led to the adoption of robotic surgery. However, societal effects, and more specifically, directto-patient marketing and media coverage have also had a critical role.21 Direct-topatient marketing leads to increased spending on pharmaceutical and medical services and perceptions of improved performance with robotic surgery, even though the advertising claims might be unsubstantiated.21–25 In a study of direct-to-patient marketing for RARP, Mirkin et al.26 found that many advertisements claimed benefits that were not supported by the literature, and that 42% of websites failed to mention any possible complications. 26 Not only has this marketing strategy for robotic surgery been pervasive, but widespread media coverage of RARP has added to consumerism and increased demand from patients for the new technology.21 By contrast, partial nephrectomies are likely to be underutilized for extirpation of renal masses, and robotic technology enables increased adoption of this technique.19,27,28 More surgeons are now performing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy than 56 | JANUARY 2015 | VOLUME 12
before the introduction of the surgical robot, possibly owing to the shorter learning curve associated with the robot-assisted technique, compared with laparoscopy.19 Compared with radical nephrectomy, preservation of renal parenchyma might provide cost savings because of a decrease in the morbidity that is associated with chronic kidney disease, reduced risk of metachronous recurrences, improvement in many health-related quality- of-life (HRQOL) domains and improved survival.19,27,29–33 Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) programme and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Miller and colleagues 34 demonstrated that surgeon preferences have greater influence over the type of renal oncologic surgery performed than patient or tumour characteristics. The authors argued that decreasing the adoption barriers to nephron-sparing and laparoscopic surgery is necessary to improve the care of patients with early-stage renal cancer.34 However, it is also important to avoid unnecessary use of robotic techniques in kidney surgery. Robot availability, practice patterns and consumerism can lead to an increase in the number of surgeries to remove small renal masses (SRMs), when observation might be a preferable option. Also, a surgeon with limited experience could be tempted by the availability of a surgical robot to perform a partial nephrectomy, or a robot-assisted total nephrectomy, when the patient might be better served by referral to a high-volume centre.
Outcomes of robotic surgery Prostatectomy Compared with open surgery, RARP has been associated with shorter lengths-ofstay, 14,35 decreased blood loss 14,35,36 and decreases in specific short-term complications, but increased operative times.35,37,38 Compared with ORP, RARP has been associ ated with an increased risk for any patient safety indicator, adverse patient safety events and decreased odds of mortality.3,39,40 The data are inconclusive for effects on erectile dysfunction and incontinence,35,36,41 as well as for cancer control.35,37,41–46 After performing a systematic review of the literature, Ahmed et al.14 concluded that minimally invasive urological surgery was associated with decreased length-of-stay and blood loss. Ficarra et al.35 performed a meta-analysis comparing ORP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and RARP, and found no difference in positive
surgical margins (PSMs) between treatments (11–37% for ORP, 11–30% for LRP and 9.6–26% for RARP). Hu et al.41 compared ORP with MIRP, using SEER data from 2003 to 2007, and demonstrated that patients undergoing MIRP had a shorter length-of-stay, fewer postoperative respiratory complications and anastomotic strictures and fewer blood transfusions, but increased erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. No difference was found in the need for additional cancer therapies.41 Although the use of MIRP affects speci fic, short-term complication rates, it is not associated with decreased complication rates overall. Lowrance et al.37 showed that, compared with ORP, MIRP led to a shorter length-of-stay and fewer bladder-neck or urethral obstructions, but no difference in general, genitourinary or bowel complications, or in the need for postoperative androgen deprivation or radiation therapy. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, Yu et al. 38 demonstrated that RARP and LRP resulted in decreased wound and vascular complications, but no differences in overall complication rates, when compared with ORP. Pierorazio et al.47 found that, when compared with ORP and LRP, RARP was more commonly associated with complications causing patients to be off the clinical care pathway (experiencing a complication). In a study comparing ORP with RARP in the modern era (defined by the authors as being after October 2008), when the surgical robot is widely used, and learning curves have theoretically been passed, Gandaglia et al.2 demonstrated that overall 30-day and 90-day complication rates for the two approaches were comparable, but RARP was associated with a higher probability of genitourinary complications.
Although the benefits are moderate, costs associated with robotic surgery are great
Although studies generally indicate equivalent oncologic outcomes between techniques, some studies have found that oncologic efficacy is inferior with the robotic approach. Williams et al.44 demonstrated increased likelihood of PSMs with RARP compared with ORP, even when controlling for confounders. Park et al.48 also demonstrated an increased PSM rate with RARP compared with ORP in a single www.nature.com/nrurol
PERSPECTIVES surgeon’s early experience, although after >500 cases the pT3 PSM rates became equivalent. Most of the studies that have compared RARP and ORP are based on single institution experiences, and many are biased in terms of patient selection.23,25 Prospective, randomized, controlled trials involving multiple surgeons are required to properly compare these techniques.
Partial nephrectomy Preservation of kidney function is important for protection from renal insufficiency and associated cardiovascular morbidity. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is technically challenging, and minimally invasive surgery is more likely to be used for removal of SRMs at high-volume centres than at low-volume centres.27,28 However, the advent of robotic surgery has enabled partial nephrectomy to be performed by less-experienced surgeons. RAPN is associ ated with a shorter learning curve than LPN, and its introduction has contributed to an increase in the rate of nephron-sparing surgery.19 Deane et al.49 demonstrated that, after performing as few as 10 RAPNs, a surgeon experienced in open surgical techniques can attain the same outcomes as a surgeon with extensive laparoscopic experience. By comparison, >200 cases can be required to become fully experienced at LPN.50–52 Data from retrospective studies suggest that kidney preservation with partial nephrectomy for SRMs can increase overall survival, because of decreased rates of renal insufficiency and cardiovascular problems. 53–56 Using linked SEER–CMS data, Tan and colleagues30 demonstrated improved overall survival for Medicare patients treated with partial nephrectomy rather than radical nephrectomy for T1a lesions. By contrast, Lau et al.56 performed an analysis of radical nephrectomy versus partial nephrectomy in patients with a healthy contralateral kidney, and found no differences in survival. Even though the American Urological Association guidelines recommend partial nephrectomy for patients with stage T1 renal lesions, in 2000–2001 only 20% of renal tumours 2–4 cm in diameter were removed with partial nephrectomy, suggesting that this procedure was underutilized.27,28 Few studies have directly compared open partial nephrectomy (OPN) with RAPN. In an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, Yu et al.38 demonstrated that RAPN is associated with decreased length-of-stay
…robotic surgery has enabled partial nephrectomy to be performed by less-experienced surgeons
and fewer genitourinary, wound and vascular complications, but no differences in overall complications or mortality. Other studies comparing OPN with LPN have demonstrated decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stays, decreased analgesia requirements and shorter convalescence with LPN.57,58 Postoperative complications might be greater in LPN compared with OPN, but 10-year oncologic outcomes for the two procedures are equivalent.58,59 Although technically challenging, LPN offers equivalent outcomes, and cost savings, compared with RAPN. 60–62 In a systematic review comparing RAPN with LPN, no differences were found in operative times, blood loss, conversion rates, compli cations, PSMs or hospital length-of-stay, although RAPN was associated with shorter warm ischaemia times.62
Cystectomy Compared with open radical cystectomy (ORC), robot-assisted radical cystec tomy (RARC) has demonstrated shorter hospital stays, decreased blood loss and faster return of bowel function, but also increased operative times, and equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes.63–66 These data must be interpreted cautiously, as selection bias could have a role in the findings, and oncologic outcomes can only be determined with long-term follow-up observation. Many of these RARCs were performed in high-volume surgical centres, where surgeons have generally completed the robotic surgery learning curve, and the maximal benefits of the robot can be realized. The findings might not apply to lower-volume centres, with less-experienced surgeons and care-coordination teams. The Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) performed a randomized, controlled trial of ORC versus RARC. The trial was terminated prematurely, after the interim analysis demonstrated no difference in outcomes between the two surgical approaches.67 Nix et al.65 performed a single-centre, randomized, controlled trial of ORC versus RARC, and found no differences in PSMs, lymphnode yield, overall complication rate or hospital stay. Robotic cystectomy was associated with decreased blood loss, faster return of bowel function and decreased analgesia
NATURE REVIEWS | UROLOGY
requirement, but longer operating times. In a pilot, three-armed, randomized, controlled trial of ORC, laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and RARC, Gan et al.68 observed increased blood loss and lengthof-stay, and delayed return of bowel function for ORC, but shorter operative times compared with RARC and LRC. No other signifi cant differences were found for other clinical or pathological variables, or for physical, emotional or social function scores or sexual well-being. In an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, comparing minimally invasive radical cystectomy with ORC, Cohen et al.66 observed a 30% decrease in the likelihood of a patient safety indicator with the minimally invasive approach, but no difference in mortality rates. Wang et al.64 reported that even though patients undergoing an open cystectomy had more extensive disease (extravesical disease and nodal metastasis), complication rates and short-term oncologic outcomes (number of PSMs and lymph nodes removed) were similar. Parekh et al. 63 also found no differences in short-term oncologic outcomes. Challacombe et al.69 observed more PSMs with minimally invasive cystectomy than with ORC for bulky disease. In addition, laparoscopy or robot use could potentially cause tumour seeding or impaired lymphatic venous flow, leading to unusual patterns of tumour recurrence.70
Costs of robotic surgery
The use of surgical robots has been associ ated with marginal clinical benefits, but great financial costs. Outcome and cost data are difficult to decipher. Most data are retrospective and lack uniformity, and they are often limited to single-surgeon or single-institution experience. Also, it is hard to assess the true cost of robotic technology as the costs are hidden. Reimbursement is often the same for robotic and open pro cedures, and so hospitals spread the additional expenses of robotic surgery across other associated procedures, which might not be directly related to the technology.1 Hospital volume, by virtue of economies of scale, centralization of services, experience and practice patterns, influences charges that are directly related to the robot, and those that are associated with postoperative pathways, hospital length-of-stay and complication rates. In order for a complete comparison to be performed, all fixed and variable expenses, including those associated with readmission and absence from work during convalescence, must be determined. VOLUME 12 | JANUARY 2015 | 57
PERSPECTIVES Prostatectomy Several studies have compared the costs of MIRP and ORP, finding that although laparoscopic costs are similar to those of open surgery, robotic surgery is more expensive. Bolenz et al.13 determined that ORP was a less-costly surgical approach than LRP or RARP, with median direct costs of $4,437, $5,687 and $6,752, respectively. Increased operating-room and surgical expenses accounted for most of the differences. Initial and maintenance costs of the robot were not included in this evaluation. Ahmed et al.14 performed a systematic review of the literature and confirmed that RARP is the most expensive surgical modality, with costs of $2,000–$39,215, compared with $740– $29,771 for LRP and $1,870–$31,518 for ORP. Yu et al.38 performed a propensitymatched analysis and also demonstrated some short-term clinical benefits to robotic technology, but again, these differences were not sufficient to translate into financial savings. RARP had a mean adjusted cost $1,100 higher than ORP. Although increased hospital volume can decrease costs, even in the highest-volume centres, where the fixed charges associated with the surgical robot are more widely dispersed, and other fixed costs are decreased, RARP is still more expensive than ORP.16 Follow-up costs and those associated with postoperative complications are important considerations when evaluating the overall expense of a technology. By including all inpatient and postoperative costs for 1 year postoperatively, excluding the costs of other cancer therapies, Lowrance and colleagues71 demonstrated that MIRP was only 7.4% ($751) more expensive per procedure than ORP. However, this difference was still statistically significant. Kim et al.72 used the American Hospital Association Survey and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to measure costs associated with a prostatectomy, including postoperative complications. They found that, although patients undergoing RARP were younger, had lower Elixhauser comorbidity indices, and were more likely to be operated on in high-volume centres, RARP was associated with higher hospitalization expenses compared with ORP (adjusted costs $11,032 versus $9,390).72 In the postdissemination era, when surgical robots are widespread, and many surgeons are trained in their use, Gandaglia et al.2 demonstrated that RARP had higher charges than ORP within 1 year from surgery ($13,395 versus $11,970, P <0.001). 58 | JANUARY 2015 | VOLUME 12
Partial nephrectomy In contrast to RARP, which is clearly more expensive than ORP, some studies have demonstrated similar costs of OPN, LPN and RAPN.17,38,60 Yu et al.38 found that the use of robotic technology increased costs for radical prostatectomy, radical nephrectomy and pyeloplasty, but that costs were similar for the different approaches to partial nephrectomy. Mir et al.60 showed that LPN provided 9.8% savings compared with OPN per procedure ($10,311 versus $11,427), because of decreased lengthof-stay (3.2 days versus 5.9 days), but that RAPN was 4.7% more expensive than OPN ($11,962 versus $11,427). Alemozaffar et al. 17 observed that OPN was the least expensive nephron-sparing surgical approach, with costs of $5,774, $6,075 and $6,375 for OPN, LPN and RAPN, respectively, representing a saving of 9% when choosing OPN over RAPN. However, a sensitivity analysis demonstrated that costs of RAPN and LPN could equal those of OPN if hospital length-of-stay for minimally invasive surgery was ≤2 days, and operatingroom time was <195 min for RAPN and <224 min for LPN, suggesting that as the techniques develop, RAPN could reach cost equivalence with OPN.17 Cystectomy Cystectomy requires longer mean hospital stays than many other urological pro cedures. Although substantial expenditure is associated with robotic equipment and increased operative times with RARC, savings could be realized if hospital stays and transfusion requirements were reduced. Currently, the outcomes of RARC do not lead to savings. Smith et al.18 demonstrated that RARC costs $1,640 (11.2%) more per case than ORC. Operating-room fixed and variable costs are greater for RARC, but hospital fixed expenses are nearly the same for both approaches. ORC has higher transfusion rates and increased length-ofstay, causing increased variable hospital costs. Lee et al. 73 also showed that ORC has the lowest direct costs. If indirect costs, and those of complications, are included in the analysis, RARC is less expensive than ORC, especially when an ileal conduit is performed for urinary diversion. A drama tic difference in length-of-stay (11 days for ORC versus 7 days for RARC) is mostly responsible for this difference, along with the increased rate and severity of complications associated with ORC. These data should be interpreted cautiously, as
selection bias could be involved. Martin et al.74 had similar findings to Lee and colleagues,73 and showed that although ORC has lower direct costs, overall, RARC is associated with a 38% cost advantage. Cost differences between ORC and RARC were most affected by operating-room time, followed by length-of-stay, robot-associated operating-room supply costs, case volume, robot cost and transfusion rate.74
Robotics and health-care reform
One objective of health-care reform is to add value to the health-care system. When operations are paid for by third parties, patients increasingly demand treatments involving surgical robots, despite limited evidence for their effectiveness. Hospitals and group practices encourage robotic surgery because consumers demand it. Doctors are becoming increasingly familiar with the technology, and hospitals aim to decrease their costs of purchasing and maintaining robots and to increase consumer demand for their services, both for the robot and for health-care market share. The increased demand and utilization is sometimes occurring even when a non surgical approach might be just as effective. Most insurance companies do not currently pay higher reimbursement for robotic surgery. Hospitals are distributing the additional costs of robotic approaches through other avenues, so the procedural costs might not accurately reflect the overall cost of robotic surgery. The increasing emphasis that the CMS places on bundled payment models might prevent this distribution of additional costs in future. Combined with other methods of cost reduction, such as insurance companies increasingly holding patients responsible for a proportion of the bill, this change could alter incentive structures so that patients demand services with increased value, and hospitals have fewer incentives to offer robot-assisted surgeries. A potentially serious consequence of the current overuse of robotic surgery is that some urology residents spend much of their time training on use of the robot, instead of on the laparoscopic or open surgical alternatives, potentially creating a reliance on more-expensive technology, and leading to increased health-care expenditure. In this situation, relatively improved outcomes of robot-assisted surgery could result from lack of training in the open and laparoscopic counterparts, rather than because of clinical benefits owing to the use of robotic technology. www.nature.com/nrurol
PERSPECTIVES Surgical robotics probably has an important role in renal surgery, facilitating partial nephrectomy rather than radical nephrectomy. However, equivalent surgical outcomes have been demonstrated following RAPN and LPN techniques. Patients with SRMs amenable to nephron-sparing techniques could, therefore, be referred to high-volume surgical centres, where even in the absence of robotic technology, a partial nephrectomy would be performed if indicated, and better outcomes might be achieved. Further studies are required to determine the appropriate role of robotic surgery in the case of partial nephrectomy.
Surgical robotics has undoubtedly advanced the treatment of genitourinary malignancies, and continues to serve as a platform for the introduction of novel technology. As an example, using near-infrared stimulation, integrated fluorescence imaging can aid in the identification of vascular structures and the verification of renal ischaemia during RAPN. Although this approach adds an unnecessary expense in the majority of operations, it could prove invaluable in select cases, such as a complex, reoperative renal hilum, or a complex tumour in a solitary kidney. Although, overall, robotic technology has increased health-care costs, the application of robot-assisted surgery could provide a real benefit in certain clinical scenarios. Advanced oncologic robotic surgery is now being performed in the majority of academic and oncologic centres in the USA and in Europe. Additionally, the roboticsurgery platform is increasingly being applied to more complex oncologic scenarios, such as renal vein and inferior vena cava thrombi and retroperitoneal lymphnode dissections for testicular cancer. As a community, urologists should embrace the use of the surgical robot for treatment of patients with genitourinary malignancies, but not at the expense of patient safety, cost and sound oncologic surgical principles. It is imperative that we critically study the expanded indications for robotic surgery from the perspectives of both outcomes and costs. Future developments in surgical robotics should make this approach more costeffective, and provide the necessary tactile feedback that is a feature of open surgery. The urological oncology community should continue to embrace this technology, and to objectively study the effectiveness
and long-term functional and oncologic outcomes using randomized, controlled trials. The results of these studies will enable the advancement of our field, and could ultimately provide patients with optimal cancer care.
The use of robotic surgery has dramatically increased in the past decade, adding additional costs, but limited clinical benefit for prostate cancer surgery. Any benefits of this approach have not yet translated into cost savings. Increased expense results from the costs of the procedure and the unintended consequence of overuse of surgical techno logy when nonsurgical approaches might be preferable. Partial nephrectomy could be the only urological procedure in which the robot currently provides cost savings, although benefits might be derived with robotic surgery for cystectomy in highvolume centres with experienced surgeons. Additional studies need to be performed to determine the true value of robot-assisted surgery, taking account of all associated fixed and variable costs. Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Marburg 134 (D.R.K., J.K.M.), Marburg 150 (H.B.C.), Marburg 409 (T.J.B.), Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. Correspondence to: T.J.B. [email protected] 1.
Barbash, G. I. & Glied, S. A. New technology and health care costs--the case of robotassisted surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 701–704 (2010). Gandaglia, G. et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 1419–1426 (2014). Parsons, J. K., Messer, K., Palazzi, K., Stroup, S. P. & Chang, D. Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg. 149, 845–851 (2014). Close, A. et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur. Urol. 64, 361–369 (2013). Nguyen, P. L. et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 1517–1524 (2011). Malcolm, J. B. et al. Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 183, 1822–1828 (2010). Badani, K. K., Kaul, S. & Menon, M. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy. Cancer 110, 1951–1958 (2007).
NATURE REVIEWS | UROLOGY
Patel, V. R., Tully, A. S., Holmes, R. & Lindsay, J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J. Urol. 174, 269–272 (2005). Schroeck, F. R. et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 54, 785–793 (2008). Burgess, S. V., Atug, F., Castle, E. P., Davis, R. & Thomas, R. Cost analysis of radical retropubic, perineal, and robotic prostatectomy. J. Endourol. 20, 827–830 (2006). Jacobs, B. L. et al. Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer. JAMA 309, 2587–2595 (2013). Porter, M. E. A strategy for health care reform —toward a value-based system. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 109–112 (2009). Bolenz, C. et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 57, 453–458 (2010). Ahmed, K. et al. Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery —a systematic review. BJU Int. 110, 1544–1556 (2012). Yu, H. Y. et al. Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 187, 1632–1637 (2012). Hyams, E. S. et al. Impact of robotic technique and surgical volume on the cost of radical prostatectomy. J. Endourol. 27, 298–303 (2013). Alemozaffar, M. et al. Comparing costs of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J. Endourol. 27, 560–565 (2013). Smith, A. et al. Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J. Urol. 183, 505–509 (2010). Patel, H. D. et al. Trends in renal surgery: robotic technology is associated with increased use of partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 189, 1229–1235 (2013). Altekruse, S. F. et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2007, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program [online], http://seer.cancer.gov/ csr/1975_2007/ (2010). Alkhateeb, S. & Lawrentschuk, N. Consumerism and its impact on roboticassisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 108, 1874–1878 (2011). United States General Accounting Office. FDA oversight of direct‑to‑consumer advertising has limitations. Report to congressional requesters GAO‑03‑177. General Accounting Office [online], http://www.gao.gov/ new.items/d03177.pdf (2002). Scardino, P. T. Intoxicated by technology: are we keeping our eyes on the prize? Nat. Clin. Pract. Urol. 4, 231 (2007). Eastham, J. A. Robotic-assisted prostatectomy: is there truth in advertising? Eur. Urol. 54, 720–722 (2008). Wirth, M. P. & Hakenberg, O. W. Surgery and marketing: comparing different methods of radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 55, 1031–1033 (2009). Mirkin, J. N. et al. Direct‑to‑consumer internet promotion of robotic prostatectomy exhibits varying quality of information. Health Aff. (Millwood) 31, 760–769 (2012).
PERSPECTIVES 27. Miller, D. C., Hollingsworth, J. M., Hafez, K. S., Daignault, S. & Hollenbeck, B. K. Partial nephrectomy for small renal masses: an emerging quality of care concern? J. Urol. 175, 853–857 (2006). 28. Hollenbeck, B. K., Taub, D. A., Miller, D. C., Dunn, R. L. & Wei, J. T. National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a case of underutilization? Urology 67, 254–259 (2006). 29. McKiernan, J., Simmons, R., Katz, J. & Russo, P. Natural history of chronic renal insufficiency after partial and radical nephrectomy. Urology 59, 816–820 (2002). 30. Tan, H. J. et al. Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer. JAMA 307, 1629–1635 (2012). 31. Shinohara, N. et al. Impact of nephron-sparing surgery on quality of life in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 39, 114–119 (2001). 32. Rabbani, F., Herr, H. W., Almahmeed, T. & Russo, P. Temporal change in risk of metachronous contralateral renal cell carcinoma: influence of tumor characteristics and demographic factors. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 2370–2375 (2002). 33. Clark, P. E. et al. Quality of life and psychological adaptation after surgical treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of the amount of remaining renal tissue. Urology 57, 252–256 (2001). 34. Miller, D. C. et al. Diffusion of surgical innovation among patients with kidney cancer. Cancer 112, 1708–1717 (2008). 35. Ficarra, V. et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 55, 1037–1063 (2009). 36. Berryhill, R. Jr et al. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 72, 15–23 (2008). 37. Lowrance, W. T. et al. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J. Urol. 183, 1366–1372 (2010). 38. Yu, H. Y., Hevelone, N. D., Lipsitz, S. R., Kowalczyk, K. J. & Hu, J. C. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J. Urol. 187, 1392–1398 (2012). 39. Anderson, J. E., Chang, D. C., Parsons, J. K. & Talamini, M. A. The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 215, 107–114 (2012). 40. 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. 31, 455–461 (2013). 41. Hu, J. C. et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302, 1557–1564 (2009). 42. Novara, G. et al. Systematic review and meta‑analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 62, 382–404 (2012). 43. Picozzi, S. C., Ricci, C. & Carmignani, L. Re: Giacomo Novara, Vincenzo Ficarra, Simone Mocellin, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:382–404. Eur. Urol. 63, e27–e28 (2013).
60 | JANUARY 2015 | VOLUME 12
44. Williams, S. B. et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s). Urology 76, 1097–1101 (2010). 45. Diaz, M. et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. http:dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.eururo.2014.06.025. 46. Tasci, A. I. et al. Oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complication rates of roboticassisted radical prostatectomy: multicenter experience in Turkey including 1,499 patients. World J. Urol. http:dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00345-014-1393-3. 47. Pierorazio, P. M. et al. Trends in immediate perioperative morbidity and delay in discharge after open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP): a 20-year institutional experience. BJU Int. 112, 45–53 (2013). 48. Park, J. et al. Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience. World J. Urol. 32, 193–199 (2014). 49. Deane, L. A. et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J. Endourol. 22, 947–952 (2008). 50. Link, R. E. et al. Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass. J. Urol. 173, 1690–1694 (2005). 51. Benway, B. M. et al. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multiinstitutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J. Urol. 182, 866–872 (2009). 52. Gill, I. S., Kamoi, K., Aron, M. & Desai, M. M. 800 laparoscopic partial nephrectomies: a single surgeon series. J. Urol. 183, 34–41 (2010). 53. Huang, W. C., Elkin, E. B., Levey, A. S., Jang, T. L. & Russo, P. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors--is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes? J. Urol. 181, 55–61 (2009). 54. Thompson, R. H. et al. Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be associated with decreased overall survival compared with partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 179, 468–471 (2008). 55. Van Poppel, H. et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 59, 543–552 (2011). 56. Lau, W. K., Blute, M. L., Weaver, A. L., Torres, V. E. & Zincke, H. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin. Proc. 75, 1236–1242 (2000). 57. Gill, I. S. et al. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal tumors in 200 patients. J. Urol. 170, 64–68 (2003). 58. Gill, I. S. et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J. Urol. 178, 41–46 (2007). 59. Lane, B. R., Campbell, S. C. & Gill, I. S. 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 190, 44–49 (2013).
60. Mir, S. A., Cadeddu, J. A., Sleeper, J. P. & Lotan, Y. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J. Endourol. 25, 447–453 (2011). 61. Aron, M. et al. Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int. 102, 86–92 (2008). 62. Aboumarzouk, O. M. et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 62, 1023–1033 (2012). 63. Parekh, D. J., Messer, J., Fitzgerald, J., Ercole, B. & Svatek, R. Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J. Urol. 189, 474–479 (2013). 64. Wang, G. J., Barocas, D. A., Raman, J. D. & Scherr, D. S. Robotic vs open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative outcomes and pathological measures of early oncological efficacy. BJU Int. 101, 89–93 (2008). 65. Nix, J. et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur. Urol. 57, 196–201 (2010). 66. Cohen, S. A. et al. Minimally invasive cystectomy is associated with improved perioperative patient safety outcomes compared with open cystectomy in a national cohort. Urology 84, 314–319 (2014). 67. Bochner, B. H., Sjoberg, D. D. & Laudone, V. P. A randomized trial of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 389–390 (2014). 68. Gan, C. et al. A pilot prospective single-centre 3‑arm randomised controlled trial of open, robotic and laparoscopic (coral) radical cystectomy for bladder cancer [abstract 1624]. J. Urol. 189, e667–e668 (2013). 69. Challacombe, B. J. et al. The role of laparoscopic and robotic cystectomy in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with special emphasis on cancer control and complications. Eur. Urol. 60, 767–775 (2011). 70. Simonato, A. & Ennas, M. Re: Ben J. Challacombe, Bernard H. Bochner, Prokar Dasgupta. et al. The role of laparoscopic and robotic cystectomy in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with special emphasis on cancer control and complications. Eur Urol 2011;60:767-75. Eur. Urol. 61, e29 (2012). 71. Lowrance, W. T. et al. Costs of medical care after open or minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery: a population-based analysis. Cancer 118, 3079–3086 (2012). 72. Kim, S. P. et al. Hospitalization costs for radical prostatectomy attributable to robotic surgery. Eur. Urol. 64, 11–16 (2013). 73. Lee, R. et al. The economics of robotic cystectomy: cost comparison of open versus robotic cystectomy. BJU Int. 108, 1886–1892 (2011). 74. Martin, A. D., Nunez, R. N. & Castle, E. P. Robot‑assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a complete cost analysis. Urology 77, 621–625 (2011). Author contributions All authors contributed to researching data for the article, discussing content and writing the article, as well as reviewing and editing the manuscript before submission.
The quest for improved patient outcomes has been a driving force for adoption of novel surgical innovations across surgical subspecialties. Gynecologic oncology is one such surgical discipline in which minimally invasive surgery has had a robust and
Robotically assisted surgeries have flourished in the United States, especially in gynecological procedures. Current robotic systems have high upfront and procedure costs that have led many in the medical community to question the new technology's co