Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/132742
Title: Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES
Authors: Guerrero-Ortiz, María Alejandra
Sánchez-Velazquez, Patricia
Burdío, Fernando
Gimeno, Marta
Podda, Mauro
Pellino, Gianluca
Toledano, Miguel
Nuñez, Javier
Bellido, Juan
Acosta Mérida, María Asunción 
Vicente, Emilio
Lopez-Ben, Santiago
Pacheco, David
Pando, Elizabeth
Jorba, Rosa
Trujillo, Juan Pablo Arjona
Ausania, Fabio
Alvarez, Mario
Fernandes, Nair
Castro-Boix, Sandra
Gantxegu, Amaia
Carré, Miquel Kraft
Pinto-Fuentes, Pilar
Bueno-Cañones, Alejandro
Valdes-Hernandez, Javier
Tresierra, Luis
Caruso, Riccardo
Ferri, Valentina
Tio, Berta
Babiloni-Simon, Sonia
Lacasa-Martin, David
González-Abós, Carolina
Guevara-Martinez, Jenny
Gutierrez-Iscar, Eduardo
Sanchez-Santos, Raquel
Cano-Valderrama, Oscar
Nogueira-Sixto, Manuel
Alvarez-Garrido, Nicolas
Martinez-Cortijo, Sagrario
Lasaia, Manuel Alberto
Linacero, Santiago
Morante, Ana Pilar
Rotellar, Fernando
Arredondo, Jorge
Marti, Pablo
Sabatella, Lucas
Zozaya, Gabriel
Ielpo, Benedetto
UNESCO Clasification: 321301 Cirugía abdominal
Keywords: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy
Minimally Invasive Surgery
Quality Of Life Analysis
Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy
Issue Date: 2024
Journal: Surgical Endoscopy 
Abstract: Introduction: Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres. Methods: This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP. Results: During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively. Conclusions: The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/132742
ISSN: 0930-2794
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11109-x
Source: Surgical Endoscopy [ISSN 0930-2794], (Enero 2024).
Appears in Collections:Artículos
Show full item record

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

1
checked on Nov 17, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Share



Export metadata



Items in accedaCRIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.