Identificador persistente para citar o vincular este elemento: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/136520
Campo DC Valoridioma
dc.contributor.authorGuerrero-Ortiz, Maria Alejandraen_US
dc.contributor.authorPellino, Gianlucaen_US
dc.contributor.authorDamieta, Marta Pascualen_US
dc.contributor.authorGimeno, Martaen_US
dc.contributor.authorAlonso, Sandraen_US
dc.contributor.authorPodda, Mauroen_US
dc.contributor.authorToledano, Miguelen_US
dc.contributor.authorNunez-Alfonsel, Javieren_US
dc.contributor.authorSelvaggi, Lucioen_US
dc.contributor.authorAcosta Mérida, María Asunciónen_US
dc.contributor.authorBellido, Juanen_US
dc.contributor.authorIelpo, Benedettoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-05T17:26:19Z-
dc.date.available2025-03-05T17:26:19Z-
dc.date.issued2025en_US
dc.identifier.issn0039-6060en_US
dc.identifier.otherWoS-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10553/136520-
dc.description.abstractObjective: The costs related to robotic surgery are known to be greater than those associated with laparoscopy. However, the potential for better outcomes of the former could lead to a cost-effectiveness advantage. The aim of this study is therefore to highlight the difference in cost-effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. Methods: This is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). From 2022, for 1 year, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal resection were included. Quality- adjusted life year and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to assess the costeffectiveness of robotic rectal resection and laparoscopic rectal resection . Secondary aims included clinical outcomes and quality of life. Results: Overall, 182 patients underwent rectal resection (152 anterior and 30 abdominoperineal excisions) at 14 centers, of whom 95 received robotic rectal resection and 87 laparoscopic rectal resection. Robotic rectal resection was associated with lesser blood loss (58.55 +/- 51.68 vs 131.68 +/- 191.92, P < .001), lower pain score at day 1 (-1.04 visual analog scale, P < .001) and day 7 (-0.81, P < .001) after surgery, and with fewer hospital readmissions (2.1% vs 15%, P = .005) compared with laparoscopic rectal resection. The overall costs of robotic rectal resection (including hospitalization) were 919.66 euros greater compared with laparoscopic rectal resection, but quality-adjusted life years in the robotic rectal resection group were better than laparoscopic approaches to rectal resection both at 30-day (0.8914 vs 0.8139) and 90-day (0.9573 vs 0.8740) follow-up. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was an 84.38% and 89.36% probability that robotic rectal resection was more cost-effective than laparoscopic rectal resection. Conclusion: This study showed that robotic rectal resection, even if associated with greater direct costs in the short term, outperforms laparoscopic rectal resection in terms of quality-adjusted life years and should therefore be preferred where available.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofSurgeryen_US
dc.sourceSurgery[ISSN 0039-6060],v. 180, (Abril 2025)en_US
dc.subject32 Ciencias médicasen_US
dc.subject3213 Cirugíaen_US
dc.subject.otherTotal Mesorectal Excisionen_US
dc.subject.otherSurgeryen_US
dc.subject.otherCanceren_US
dc.subject.otherRecommendationsen_US
dc.subject.otherComplicationen_US
dc.subject.otherOutcomesen_US
dc.titleCost-effectiveness of robotic compared with laparoscopic rectal resection. Results from the Spanish prospective national trial ROBOCOSTESen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/Articleen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.surg.2024.109134en_US
dc.identifier.isi001422785200001-
dc.relation.volume180en_US
dc.investigacionCiencias de la Saluden_US
dc.type2Artículoen_US
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.description.numberofpages8en_US
dc.utils.revisionen_US
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Guerrero-Ortíz, MA-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Pellino, G-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Damieta, MP-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Gimeno, M-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Alonso, S-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Podda, M-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Toledano, M-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Núeñz-Alfonsel, J-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Selvaggi, L-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Acosta-Merida, MA-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Bellido, J-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Ielpo, B-
dc.date.coverdateAbril 2025en_US
dc.identifier.ulpgcen_US
dc.contributor.buulpgcBU-MEDen_US
dc.description.sjr0,175
dc.description.sjrqQ4
dc.description.miaricds8,0
item.fulltextSin texto completo-
item.grantfulltextnone-
crisitem.author.deptDepartamento de Ciencias Médicas y Quirúrgicas-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-4813-6217-
crisitem.author.fullNameAcosta Mérida, María Asunción-
Colección:Artículos
Vista resumida

Google ScholarTM

Verifica

Altmetric


Comparte



Exporta metadatos



Los elementos en ULPGC accedaCRIS están protegidos por derechos de autor con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.