2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2020.07.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cost Considerations for Robotic Surgery

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
8
0
2

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
8
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Cost-effectiveness has been studied for robotic surgery in other subspecialties with conclusions varying greatly depending on region, hospital, and institution being analyzed. 35 , 36 , 37 With the market of robotic surgery soaring to $20 billion in 2021 from just $4 billion in 2014, 38 the impetus for a PRS-focused cost-effectiveness analysis is difficult to comprehend.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cost-effectiveness has been studied for robotic surgery in other subspecialties with conclusions varying greatly depending on region, hospital, and institution being analyzed. 35 , 36 , 37 With the market of robotic surgery soaring to $20 billion in 2021 from just $4 billion in 2014, 38 the impetus for a PRS-focused cost-effectiveness analysis is difficult to comprehend.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there remains, significant clinical work in order to validate the potential benefits of magnetic‐ICG, robot‐assisted SLNB in the head and neck, and a case for using a robot for this procedure needs to be weighed against its substantial added cost. From a resource utilization standpoint, an economically feasible case could be made for patients with cN0 oropharyngeal cancer being treated with TORS, where a combination of preoperative MRI and robotic primary resection followed by a minimally‐invasive robot‐assisted SLNB approach could optimize robotic theater utilization and reduce surgical time and complications 36 . More practically, future clinical translation of the multi‐modal approach to SLNB (robot‐assisted or conventional) should aim at refining protocols for the timing and dose of ICG and magnetic tracer injections.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From a resource utilization standpoint, an economically feasible case could be made for patients with cN0 oropharyngeal cancer being treated with TORS, where a combination of preoperative MRI and robotic primary resection followed by a minimally‐invasive robot‐assisted SLNB approach could optimize robotic theater utilization and reduce surgical time and complications. 36 More practically, future clinical translation of the multi‐modal approach to SLNB (robot‐assisted or conventional) should aim at refining protocols for the timing and dose of ICG and magnetic tracer injections. In addition, the impact to the normal clinical workflow should be considered, such as the feasibility of timing MRI to minimize latency between injection and the first pseudo‐dynamic scan (i.e., consider performing patient injection on the MRI table), and the timing of MRI relative to the surgery (e.g., same‐day vs. next‐day surgery).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Inicialmente, según cifras estimadas en 2009, el costo de este sistema junto con la actualización de su software era de US 1,5 millones de dólares, junto con US 150.000 dólares anuales por mantención 27 . Sin embargo, los costos se han abaratado con el paso del tiempo, sumado a que el sistema daVinci está más disponible para otras especialidades o incluso en otorrinolaringología para enfermedades oncológicas, por lo que la disponibilidad ha aumentado, así como el entrenamiento de los equipos humanos, y los brazos robóticos pueden reutilizarse hasta 20 veces cada uno, con un costo estimado de US 500 dólares por el equipamiento desechable 29 .…”
Section: Costosunclassified
“…A pesar de la existencia de evidencia que indica que puede disminuir la estadía hospitalaria por 1 día en promedio, esto no es suficiente para señalar que disminuiría los costos, además de estar basado en evidencia de baja calidad y no estar asociado con un análisis de costo-efectividad 27,28 . Por este motivo, consideramos que los datos de costo-efectividad y costo-beneficio asociado al uso de TORS como herramienta estándar en el manejo de pacientes con SAHOS debe ser analizada como parte del proceso de riesgo-beneficio caso a caso 29 .…”
Section: Costosunclassified