Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques in oncology: Analysis of English secondary care data for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy

BJU International

Volumn 117, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 940-947

  Hughes, David ^a,b   Camp, Charlotte ^a   O'Hara, Jamie ^a,b   Adshead, Jim ^c  

^a The Innovation Centre   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c LISTER HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

costs; partial nephrectomy; prostatectomy; resources; robot assisted surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; DATA ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY CANCER; LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; OPEN PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; OPEN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; OUTPATIENT CARE; PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOT ASSISTED PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; ROBOT ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HOSPITAL COST; HOSPITALIZATION; LAPAROSCOPY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHRECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; UNITED KINGDOM;

HEALTH RESOURCES; HOSPITAL COSTS; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHRECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84955125292     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.13401     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 418-30
2. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 405-17
3. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 431-52
4. Farnham SB, Webster TM, Herrell SD, Smith JA,. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2006; 67: 360-3
5. Moran PS, O'Neill M, Teljeur C, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 2013; 20: 312-21
6. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 177: 929-31
7. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16: 1-313
8. Murphy D, Dasgupta P,. Can the NHS afford robotic surgery? Clin Serv J 2009; 37-9
9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. 2014. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175/resources/guidance-prostate-cancer-diagnosis-and-treatment-pdf
10. Siobhan Ós, Ryan M, Clifford T, et al. Health Technology Assessment of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Selected Surgical Procedures. 2011
11. Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, 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 natio. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 361-9
12. NHS England. Clinical Commissioning Policy: Robotic-Assisted Surgical Procedures for Prostate Cancer. 2015. Available at: http://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/10/b14pa-rbtic-asstd-srgry-prostate-cancer-oct15.pdf
13. Minervini A, Vittori G, Antonelli A, et al. Open versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicenter comparison study of perioperative results and complications. World J Urol 2014; 32: 287-93
14. Jones R,. Limitations of the HRG tariff: excess bed days. Br J Healthc Manag 2013; 14: 354-355. Available at: http://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/bjhc.2008.14.8.30688
15. Curtis L,. Unit Costs of Health & Social Care 2013. 2013. Available at: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2013/index.php
16. Stata Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp, 2013
17. Waller J, Pattison N,. Men's experiences of regaining urinary continence following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) for localised prostate cancer: a qualitative phenomenological study. J Clin Nurs 2013; 22: 368-78
18. Miller DC, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, et al. Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: health-related quality-of-life changes after radical prostatectomy, external radiation, and brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2772-80
19. Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF, et al. A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 450-6
20. Trinh Q-D, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 786-98
21. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess S V, Thomas R, Davis R,. Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 866-71. Discussion 871-2
22. Anderson J, Clarke N, Gillat D, Dasgupta P, Neal D, Pickard R,. Advice on the Development of Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in England. 2012
23. Parthasarathy M, Reid V, Pyne L, Groot-Wassink T,. Are we recording postoperative complications correctly? Comparison of NHS hospital episode statistics with the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; 24: 594-602
24. Health and Social Care Information Centre. HRG4 Chapter Summary. 2013; 1-14. Available at: papers3://publication/uuid/EFAB6754-55D4-41D5-83DA-C48051E0B2C8
25. British Society for Sexual Medicine. Guidelines on the Management of Erectile Dysfunction. 2013
26. Wells A, Green J, Husk J, Whiteley J,. Cost-Effective Commissioning for Continence Care: All Party Parliamentary Group for Continence Care Report. 2011.
27. Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 785-93
28. Royal College of Surgeons of England. Royal College of Surgeons Response to Monitor and NHS England's Consultation on the NHS National Tariff Payment System 2015/16. Available at: https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/policy/documents/RCSresponsetoNHSEnglandandMonitorconsultationonNHSTariff2015.pdf
29. Monitor. 2016/17 National Tariff Proposals: Currency Design and Relative Prices. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment-data/file/453397/Currency-design-and-relative-prices-final.pdf