Long term COST-minimization analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy

• Main Authors: María A. Martínez-Maestre, Lidia M. Melero-Cortés, Pluvio J. Coronado, Carmen González-Cejudo, Nuria García-Agua, Antonio J. García-Ruíz, Francisco Jódar-Sánchez
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2019-06-01
• Series: Health Economics Review
• Subjects: Economic evaluation; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic surgery
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13561-019-0236-8

Abstract Background The aim of this study is to carry out the economic evaluation, in term of a cost-minimization analysis that considers healthcare costs and indirect costs, of robot-assisted hysterectomy (RAH) compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (CLH) in female adults scheduled for total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign conditions. Methods Cost-minimization analysis based on an analytic observational study of prospective cohorts with a five-year time horizon. Eligible participants were all female adults scheduled for total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign conditions at tertiary hospital. The economic evaluation was conducted from a Spanish National Health Service and societal perspective, including healthcare costs and indirect costs. The costs are expressed in Euros from the year 2015. Results One hundred sixty nine patients were analyzed, 68 in the RAH group and 101 in the CLH group. Average cost for the RAH group was €8982.42 compared to €8015.14 for the CLH group (incremental cost €967.27; p = 0.054). Healthcare cost is the most important component of total cost and represents 86.4% for the RAH group and 82.3% for the CLH group. The difference of €1169 (p = 0.01) in the average healthcare cost is mainly due to the cost of purchasing and maintaining the equipment (difference of €1206.39 in favor of RAH; p < 0.005). With regard to indirect costs, for patients in the RAH group the costs associated with loss of productivity were lower (difference of €203.42; p = 0.17), while the cost of trips to the hospital was higher (difference of €1.98; p = 0.66) in respect to CLH. Conclusions Our findings reveal similar effectiveness between RAH and CLH, although CLH is the more efficient option from the point of view of an economic analysis based on cost-minimization.