SpringerLink
Log in

Is implementation of robotic-assisted procedures in acute care general surgery cost-effective?

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past 2 decades, the use and importance of robotic surgery in minimally invasive surgery has increased. Across various surgical specialties, robotic technology has gained popularity through its use of 3D visualization, optimal ergonomic positioning, and precise instrument manipulation. This growing interest has also been seen in acute care surgery, where laparoscopic procedures are used more frequently. Despite the growing popularity of robotic surgery in the acute care surgical realm, there is very little research on the utility of robotics regarding its effects on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The current literature indicates some value in utilizing robotic technology in specific urgent procedures, such as cholecystectomies and incarcerated hernia repairs; however, the high cost of robotic surgery was found to be a potential barrier to its widespread use in acute care surgery. This narrative literature review aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in surgical procedures that are often done in urgent settings: cholecystectomies, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, and appendectomies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Turchetti G et al (2012) Economic evaluation of da vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26(3):598–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3(1):e1918911

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Peters BS et al (2018) Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc 32(4):1636–1655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Han C et al (2018) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32(11):4377–4392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shah J, Vyas A, Vyas D (2014) The history of robotics in surgical specialties. Am J Robot Surg 1(1):12–20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lunardi N et al (2024) Robotic technology in emergency general surgery cases in the era of minimally invasive surgery. JAMA Surg 6:e240016

    Google Scholar 

  7. Reinisch A et al (2023) Robotic operations in urgent general surgery: a systematic review. J Robot Surg 17(2):275–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins RM et al (2017) Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc 31(1):185–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ng AP et al (2023) National analysis of cost disparities in robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic abdominal operations. Surgery 173:1340–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khorgami Z et al (2019) The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the national inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 33(7):2217–2221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tandogdu Z et al (2015) A systematic review of economic evaluations of the use of robotic assisted laparoscopy in surgery compared with open or laparoscopic surgery. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 13(5):457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kane WJ et al (2020) Robotic compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a propensity matched analysis. Surgery (United States) 167(2):432–435

    Google Scholar 

  13. Abdelmoaty WF et al (2018) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 32(1):S1

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bedeir K, Mann A, Youssef Y (2016) Robotic single-site versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: which is cheaper? A cost report and analysis. Surg Endosc 30(1):267–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Munshower E et al (2022) Cost analysis of robotic assisted general surgery cases in a single academic institution. J Robot Surg 17:557–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Strosberg DS et al (2017) A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis. Surg Endosc 31(3):1436–1441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Waite KE, Herman MA, Doyle PJ (2016) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg 10(3):239–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Quilici PJ, Wolberg H, McConnell N (2022) Operating costs, fiscal impact, value analysis and guidance for the routine use of robotic technology in abdominal surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 36(2):1433–1443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rifai AO et al (2023) Retrospective analysis of operative time and time to discharge for laparoscopic vs robotic approaches to appendectomy and cholecystectomy. J Robot Surg 17:2187–2193

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Talan DA, Di Saverio S (2021) Treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis. N Engl J Med 385(12):1116–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Szold A et al (2015) European association of endoscopic surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery. Surg Endosc 29(2):253–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Avondstondt AM et al (2018) Change in cost after 5 years of experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. J Robot Surg 12(1):93–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Madion MP et al (2022) Robotic surgery training curricula: prevalence, perceptions, and educational experiences in general surgery residency programs. Surg Endosc 36(9):6638–6646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen X et al (2023) Cost analysis of training residents in robotic-assisted surgery. Surg Endosc 37(4):2765–2769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guseila LM et al (2014) Using virtual reality to maintain surgical skills during periods of robotic surgery inactivity. J Robot Surg 8(3):261–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kudsi OY et al (2022) Learning curve of robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Surg Endosc 36(3):1827–1837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kudsi OY et al (2022) Learning curve of robotic transversus abdominis release in ventral hernia repair: a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Surg Endosc 36(5):3480–3488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kudsi OY et al (2023) Learning curve of multiport robotic cholecystectomy: a cumulative sum analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 33:332–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kudsi OY et al (2023) Learning curve of single-site robotic cholecystectomy: a cumulative sum analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 33(3):310–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Singh A et al (2023) Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic cholecystectomy in the treatment of benign gallbladder disease. Surgery 173(6):1323–1328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funding was used.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Kumudini Myla, Woon Cho Kim, Nikolay Bugaev & Mohammed Bawazeer

  2. Tufts Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Boston, MA, USA

    Naseem Bou-Ayash, Woon Cho Kim, Nikolay Bugaev & Mohammed Bawazeer

Authors
  1. Kumudini Myla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naseem Bou-Ayash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Woon Cho Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nikolay Bugaev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohammed Bawazeer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Kumudini Myla and Naseem Bou-Ayash were responsible for drafting the manuscript. All authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed Bawazeer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other supports were received during the preparation of this manuscript. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Myla, K., Bou-Ayash, N., Kim, W.C. et al. Is implementation of robotic-assisted procedures in acute care general surgery cost-effective?. J Robotic Surg 18, 223 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01912-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01912-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation