Ir directamente a la navegación principal Ir directamente a la búsqueda Ir directamente al contenido principal

Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES

María Alejandra Guerrero-Ortiz, Patricia Sánchez-Velazquez, Fernando Burdío, Marta Gimeno, Mauro Podda, Gianluca Pellino, Miguel Toledano, Javier Nuñez, Juan Bellido, María Asunción Acosta-Mérida, Emilio Vicente, Santiago Lopez-Ben, David Pacheco, Elizabeth Pando, Rosa Jorba, Juan Pablo Arjona Trujillo, Fabio Ausania, Mario Alvarez, Nair Fernandes, Sandra Castro-BoixAmaia Gantxegu, Miquel Kraft Carré, Pilar Pinto-Fuentes, Alejandro Bueno-Cañones, Javier Valdes-Hernandez, Luis Tresierra, Riccardo Caruso, Valentina Ferri, Berta Tio, Sonia Babiloni-Simon, David Lacasa-Martin, Carolina González-Abós, Jenny Guevara-Martinez, Eduardo Gutierrez-Iscar, Raquel Sanchez-Santos, Oscar Cano-Valderrama, Manuel Nogueira-Sixto, Nicolas Alvarez-Garrido, Sagrario Martinez-Cortijo, Manuel Alberto Lasaia, Santiago Linacero, Ana Pilar Morante, Fernando Rotellar, Jorge Arredondo, Pablo Marti, Lucas Sabatella, Gabriel Zozaya, Benedetto Ielpo*

*Autor correspondiente de este trabajo

Producción científica: Contribución a una revistaArtículoInvestigaciónrevisión exhaustiva

14   El enlace se abre en una pestaña nueva Citas (Web of Science)

Resumen

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.
Idioma originalInglés
Páginas (desde-hasta)6270-6281
Número de páginas12
PublicaciónSurgical Endoscopy
Volumen38
DOI
EstadoPublicada - 13 ago 2024

Palabras clave

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy
  • Minimally invasive surgery
  • Quality of life analysis
  • Robotic distal pancreatectomy

Huella

Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Citar esto