Abstract
Colorectal surgery has historically embraced technology to improve efficiency and patient care. The introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery was a revolutionary technological advance for improving postoperative recovery, patient outcomes, and reducing overall healthcare costs compared to open colorectal surgery [1–9]. Despite the proven benefits, recent studies show minimally invasive techniques are used in less than 50 % of total cases, less than 20 % for colon cancer, and less than 10 % for rectal cancer [10–12]. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) is a minimally invasive technology that could help expand the use of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, especially in rectal cases.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Rectal Cancer
- Laparoscopic Surgery
- Total Mesorectal Excision
- Contribution Margin
- Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Section 1: Introduction of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery
Background
Colorectal surgery has historically embraced technology to improve efficiency and patient care. The introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery was a revolutionary technological advance for improving postoperative recovery, patient outcomes, and reducing overall healthcare costs compared to the open colorectal surgery [1–9]. Despite the proven benefits, recent studies show minimally invasive techniques are used in less than 50 % of total cases, less than 20 % for colon cancer, and less than 10 % for rectal cancer [10–12]. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) is a minimally invasive tool technology that could help expand the use of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, especially in the rectal diseases.
Introduction of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery
In 2001, the first robotic colorectal surgery was performed in the United States using the Intuitive Surgical’s Da Vinci robotic system [13]. Since then, the use of RALS has continued to grow, increasing from 0.8% in 2008 to over 4% in 2009 for all general surgical procedures [14, 15]. For colorectal surgery specifically, an estimated 2.8 % of 130,000 annual procedures were performed through a RALS approach [14]. Several studies have evaluated outcomes with this promising tool, demonstrating equivalent safety with similar clinical and oncologic outcomes to traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery [15–36].
Benefits of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery
While reported outcomes are similar, there are distinct technical advantages with RALS that may help overcome limitations encountered with laparoscopic surgery, especially when operating in the pelvis [28, 37, 38]. The robot platform has a stable three-dimensional view and instruments offering improved ergonomics and motion. The increased precision and accuracy from these instruments may facilitate more complex pelvic dissections over the conventional laparoscopic surgery [26, 38]. RALS also has proven clinical advantages, such as lower estimated blood loss and lower conversion rates to open surgery in both benign and malignant colorectal conditions [14, 19, 23, 25, 26, 29]. It has been suggested the greatest benefit of RALS is in low anterior resections for rectal cancer [16, 28]. In such cases, the RALS platform may provide better postoperative nerve function and oncologic advantages of a higher quality Total mesorectal excision (TME) and lower local recurrence rates [19, 27, 39]. Despite the potential advantages to the surgeon and patient, RALS is still not widely utilized, one reason for which is the cost.
The Cost Challenge of RALS
The higher cost of RALS has been a major challenge to justifying widespread adoption [31]. Numerous studies have shown significantly higher costs for RALS over laparoscopic colorectal resections with similar outcomes, including comparable length of stay, readmission, and complication rates [14, 16, 25, 28, 32–34, 40–42]. Eight studies comparing RALS to the laparoscopic colorectal resections all supported higher direct and total costs, with no clear superiority in the short- or long-term outcomes (Table 16.1). Across these studies, the average increase in costs was $2142. In addition to higher total costs, consistently longer operative times for RALS compared to laparoscopy have also been reported [33]. Systematic review and meta analyses have also shown comparable oncological accuracy, circumferential resection margin involvement, distal resection margin, and lymph node yield compared to the laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer [25, 29]. In a time of increasing pressure on healthcare utilization, it is necessary to ask if the increased costs are worthy for outcomes of lower intra-operative conversion and transfusion rates? And, do these perceived benefits warrant the investment to purchase and train on the robot?
Section 2: Changing the Paradigm
Defining the Optimal Model for RALS: Evaluating Success in Other Fields
Despite the current concerns regarding its cost, RALS continues to grow. Therefore, it is necessary to change the paradigm to make RALS cost-effective. The best clinical model for effective integration of RALS into practice is in urology. Recognizing a need, with the large amount of suturing required and the lack of progression to laparoscopy, there was wide and rapid adoption of robotic surgery in urology [43]. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy increased from 1% in 2001 to more than 50% of all prostatectomies performed in the United States in 2009 and is currently recognized as the gold standard [44]. Even in this optimal model, robotics is associated with higher costs than open and laparoscopic prostatectomy, predominantly from higher surgical supply and OR cost due to increased operative time [45]. The value comes from reducing the length of stay, with cost savings realized when enough nights in the hospital are saved to overcome the increased cost of the robotic procedure [46]. The shorter length of stay and faster recovery when transitioning from open to robotic models has been proven in multiple studies [47–51]. Study has found the length of stay for RALS was 1 day shorter than laparoscopic and 2 days shorter than open prostatectomy [45]. When determining if there is a value in integrating RALS into clinical practice, a break-even analysis is beneficial. An example of the cost–benefit analysis for integration of RALS is shown in Fig. 16.1.
Targeting Open Surgery
Minimally invasive procedures are the most overall cost effective. Most reports on the cost concerns of RALS compare laparoscopic and robotic colorectal resections [14, 32, 41, 42]. However, these comparisons are short sighted. RALS is a minimally invasive tool; it is not intended to steal market share from laparoscopic surgery. Despite proven benefits of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, its use is still estimated at 10% nationwide; 90% of rectal cancer cases are still performed open [10]. The value of RALS is in converting open to robotic surgery and expanding the use of minimally invasive procedures in general. National studies on robotic trends further that benefits are most pronounced when robotics is used in procedures previously performed open [15, 52]. For all common general surgery procedures, length of stay was shorter, with fewer complications and lower or equivalent mortality in the RALS compared to open cases [52]. The trends of shorter length of stay with lower complication and mortality rates were also seen in RALS versus open surgery in colorectal procedures specifically [15]. Compared to open surgery, the improved functional outcomes, reduction in postoperative pain, faster time to recover normal bowel function, and shorter length of stay make the value proposition against the cost for purchasing and integrating RALS in colorectal surgery [53]. When overall costs were considered, RALS appears more cost-effective than open surgery for colorectal procedures [15]; this same value proposition was seen during the evolution from open to laparoscopic surgery. As RALS enables open surgeons to perform more minimally invasive procedures, it can follow the model of urology, reaching overall cost reductions in length of stay and faster recovery.
Creating a Market Niche
Recognizing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer continues to be associated with low national adaption rates, RALS may be positioned as tool for increasing minimally invasive rectal cancer resections [10, 28, 41, 54]. RALS has definite advantages over open TME for rectal cancer, including significantly more lymph nodes harvested, less estimated blood loss, a shorter length of stay, faster postoperative recovery, and a significantly lower local recurrence rate [39, 55]. The robot system may overcome challenges associated with difficult pelvic anatomy, which could increase the percent of patients that undergo a minimally invasive resection [38]. The RALS approach even has benefits over laparoscopy for TME including lower conversion rates, better quality of the TME specimen, and faster recovery of urinary and sexual function, increasing the value proposition [27, 56–58]. Several characteristics have been defined as selection criteria for robotic surgery to justify its increased cost, including obesity, male sex, preoperative radiotherapy, and tumors in the lower two-thirds of the rectum [59]; rectal cancer patients with these characteristics should be considered prime candidates for RALS. RALS may be the means to increase MIS for rectal procedures. Using the platform to allow a skilled laparoscopic surgeon to overcome the barriers of pelvic surgery and offer a minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer patients is a true benefit of RALS. RALS could feasibly transition a 10% increase in utilization of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer cases. At 20%, the paradigm shift from open to minimally invasive surgery occurs, and true economic benefits are realized.
Streamlining Instrumentation
As we work to change the paradigm from open to robotic colorectal surgery, there are methods to streamline costs now. Standardizing and reducing instrumentation is a way to reduce the unnecessary costs. The Da Vinci surgical system has no third-party disposables available, offering an ability to standardize equipment that laparoscopic surgery could never offer. For example, the proprietary EndoWrist 45 (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.) robotic stapler may be more cost-effective than a separate laparoscopic instrument. Holzmacher et al. retrospectively compared the EndoWrist 45 to laparoscopic staplers in patients who underwent RALS colorectal procedures [60]. The laparoscopic stapler group required significantly more fires per patient than the robotic stapler group (2.69 vs. 1.86; p = 0.001) and had significantly higher stapler cost per patient ($631.45 vs. $473.28; p = 0.001), demonstrating the cost- effectiveness of the robotic accessory [60]. Delto et al. demonstrated the impact of streamlining equipment to optimize the cost–benefit of robotic technology without negatively impacting operative time, blood loss, or intra-operative complications [47]. By eliminating a laparoscopic energy source in lieu of inexpensive tools (such as Hem-o-lock clips), instrumentation costs were reduced by approximately 40% [47]. Each robotic case across all service lines uses the same basic instruments, so a standardized peel pack and instrument table can reduce unnecessary equipment costs. An example of a standardized and non-standardized equipment table, and the contents of a standardized peel pack for RALS are seen in Fig. 16.2 and Table 16.2. The robotic instruments are also highly multi-functional and can be exploited to perform more tasks and contain costs. For example, using the hook instead of monopolar shears will save $120 per procedure. At a hospital that performs 100 colorectal procedures annually, this change on just 50% of the procedures will save $6000. Utilizing the suturing capabilities of the robot instead of a laparoscopic tacker in cases that use mesh fixation, such as a rectopexy, will save $500–700 per procedure. Depending on the volume of the institution, streamlining and maximizing the capabilities of the robotic instruments can result in significant cost savings.
Increasing Case Volume
The cost of each RALS case is determined by robotic system value/ the number of cases performed. Therefore, increasing the number of cases is a method to reduce the cost per case and make the tool more cost-effective. A recent review of the Premier Persepectives® database found only 13% of hospitals and 4.4% of surgeons performed a high volume of robotic colorectal cases [61]. The majority of colorectal RALS were performed by low volume surgeons (less than or equal to five cases) at low volume hospitals (less than or equal to ten cases). Furthermore, low volume providers were associated with significantly more overall complications, longer length of stay, and higher costs at both the hospital and surgeon level [61]. In addition, increasing use of robotics in other service lines will increase the total case numbers and ability to profit through economies of scale. A study has shown the technology can become cost-effective in high-volume centers with high-volume surgeons [62]. Thus, increasing individual case volumes and/or regionalizing RALS cases to a high volume center could reduce the individual cost per procedure and increase the overall revenue.
Instituting Quality Control Metrics
Facility costs can be impacted by shorter console/operative times. The attenuated learning curve with RALS has already been discussed. Another way to reduce the operative times and realize cost savings is to institute quality control measures around docking time. Docking times have been reported as a median of 10 min, but with a wide variation (range: 2–70 minutes) [63]. Docking should be a 3–5 min drill regardless of the case. Establishing docking time as a best practice, and tracking docking times against the benchmark has the potential to dramatically reduce costs. For example, if docking currently takes 15 min, at an average cost of $60 per operating room minute, in a practice that performs 2 RALS cases per operating day, and operates 100 days a year, the cost is: 15 min × ($60/min) × 2 cases/operative day × 100 operative days = 180,000. By reducing the docking time to an average of 3 minutes, the costs are reduced to $36,000, for a cost savings of $144,000.
Marketplace Competition
To reduce the capital cost, advances in robotic technology and competition in the marketplace to reduce the cost of the surgical robotic and its equipment are needed. Although costs are currently high, increased competition from manufacturers and wider dissemination of the technology could drive down the costs [64]. Intuitive Surgical’s robotic system currently dominates the market, but Titan Medical (Toronto, Ontario) has an alternative, the Single Port Orifice Robotic Technology (SPORT™) Surgical System , in clinical trials.
Putting It All Together to Maximize Profitability
In sum, understanding the cost model is paramount to making RALS a cost-efficient tool in every institution. The key to a profitable program is the contribution margin. The contribution margin is defined as the net revenue minus the direct costs (Table 16.3). To increase the contribution margin, RALS can increase reimbursement by improving the payor mix and the related reimbursement. RALS may have higher costs, but there is the ability to improve other variables in the cost model to make RALS more cost-effective. Variables to factor into the cost model include:
-
Fixed capital costs (cost of the amortized equipment)
-
Maintenance costs
-
Consumables
-
Facility costs
Fixed capital and maintenance costs can be addressed with advances in robotic technology and increased competition. Streamlining instrumentation can optimize the cost of consumables. Reducing operative and docking times to increase the number of total cases performed can reduce the facility costs. In addition, increasing use of robotics in other service lines will increase the total case numbers and ability to profit through economies of scale.
Section 3: RALS Versus Laparoscopic Surgery : An Institutional Study of Patients and Financial Outcomes
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotics at our institution, we performed a case-matched review of RALS versus laparoscopic low anterior and anterior resections. Patients were matched on body mass index (BMI), surgeon, indication for operation, and procedure performed. Clinical and financial outcomes were analyzed. The main outcome measures were the conversion rates, length of stay, complications, charges, revenue, total costs, and contribution margin in each cohort. During the study period, 32 RALS and 32 laparoscopic patients were evaluated. The patients were well matched in all demographics (Table 16.4). The RALS group had significantly longer operative times than the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001), but they had equivalent conversion rates. The length of stay, complications, and readmission rates were comparable (Table 16.5). The total cost and charges were higher in the RALS cohort, but the net revenue and contribution margin were also higher in RALS than the laparoscopic group. While not statistically significant, the values were economically different, with a profit of $3,341 per patient and $106,973 for the series (Table 16.6). Even with a higher total cost, RALS can be profitable in colorectal surgery when evaluating the entire cost model.
Conclusions
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is an evolving tool that can further the capabilities and outcomes of traditional laparoscopic surgery. Widespread utilization has been limited by higher total costs of RALS. Changing the paradigm to focus on transitioning open procedures to RALS and using simple methods to optimize profitability can make RALS a cost-effective and efficient minimally invasive tool.
References
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–9.
Bonjer HJ, Hop WC, Nelson H, et al. Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2007;142:298–303.
Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:2224–9.
Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;CD003145.
Delaney CP, Kiran RP, Senagore AJ, Brady K, Fazio VW. Case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcome after laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2003;238:67–72.
Delaney CP, Marcello PW, Sonoda T, Wise P, Bauer J, Techner L. Gastrointestinal recovery after laparoscopic colectomy: results of a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:653–61.
Champagne BJ, Delaney CP. Laparoscopic approaches to rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007;20:237–48.
Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:477–84.
Delaney CP, Chang E, Senagore AJ, Broder M. Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann Surg. 2008;247:819–24.
Carmichael JC, Masoomi H, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Nguyen NT. Utilization of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery for cancer at academic medical centers: does site of surgery affect rate of laparoscopy? Am Surg. 2011;77:1300–4.
Fox J, Gross CP, Longo W, Reddy V. Laparoscopic colectomy for the treatment of cancer has been widely adopted in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:501–8.
Kwon S, Billingham R, Farrokhi E, et al. Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214:909–18.e1.
Ballantyne GH, Merola P, Weber A, Wasielewski A. Robotic solutions to the pitfalls of laparoscopic colectomy. Osp Ital Chir. 2001;7:405–12.
Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, et al. Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg. 2013;37:2782–90.
Salman M, Bell T, Martin J, Bhuva K, Grim R, Ahuja V. Use, cost, complications, and mortality of robotic versus nonrobotic general surgery procedures based on a nationwide database. Am Surg. 2013;79:553–60.
D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:2162–8.
Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW. Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1633–9.
Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM, et al. Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1601–8.
Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1480–7.
Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Ponsky L. Robot-assisted surgery and health care costs. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2175. author reply 2176.
Mirnezami AH, Mirnezami R, Venkatasubramaniam AK, Chandrakumaran K, Cecil TD, Moran BJ. Robotic colorectal surgery: hype or new hope? A systematic review of robotics in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:1084–93.
Lin S, Jiang HG, Chen ZH, Zhou SY, Liu XS, Yu JR. Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:5214–20.
Ortiz-Oshiro E, Sanchez-Egido I, Moreno-Sierra J, Perez CF, Diaz JS, Fernandez-Represa JA. Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8(3):360–70.
Shin JY. Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between a robotic colectomy and a laparoscopic colectomy during early experience. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012;28:19–26.
Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R, et al. Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e134–56.
Park SY, Choi GS, Park JS, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP. Short-term clinical outcome of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(1):48–55.
Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2485–93.
Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(12):3727–36.
Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC. Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(7):2095–101.
Alasari S, Min BS. Robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. ISRN Surg. 2012;2012:293894.
Baek SK, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A. Robotic surgery: colon and rectum. Cancer J. 2013;19:140–6.
Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP. Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):212–21.
Trinh BB, Jackson NR, Hauch AT, Hu T, Kandil E. Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. JSLS. 2014;18:e2014.00187.
Xu H, Li J, Sun Y, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:274.
Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH. Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:816–30.
Young M, Pigazzi A. Total mesorectal excision: open, laparoscopic or robotic. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2014;203:47–55.
Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol. 2001;165:1964–6.
Baek SJ, Kim CH, Cho MS, et al. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome difficulties associated with pelvic anatomy. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(6):1419–24.
Ghezzi TL, Luca F, Valvo M, et al. Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study of short and long-term outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:1072–9.
Deutsch GB, Sathyanarayana SA, Gunabushanam V, et al. Robotic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an institutional experience. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:956–63.
Baek SJ, Kim SH, Cho JS, Shin JW, Kim J. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a cost analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J Surg. 2012;36:2722–9.
Tyler JA, Fox JP, Desai MM, Perry WB, Glasgow SC. Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:458–66.
Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JRJ, Dunne JB, Scott DJ. Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:377–82.
Pruthi RS, Wallen EM. Current status of robotic prostatectomy: promises fulfilled. J Urol. 2009;181:2420–1.
Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:453–8.
Leddy LS, Lendvay TS, Satava RM. Robotic surgery: applications and cost effectiveness. Open Access Surg. 2010;3:99–107.
Delto JC, Wayne G, Yanes R, Nieder AM, Bhandari A. Reducing robotic prostatectomy costs by minimizing instrumentation. J Endourol. 2015;29(5):556–60.
Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol. 2012;187:1392–8.
Herrmann TR, Rabenalt R, Stolzenburg JU, et al. Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter? World J Urol. 2007;25:149–60.
Lee R, Ng CK, Shariat SF, et al. The economics of robotic cystectomy: cost comparison of open versus robotic cystectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108:1886–92.
Laviana AA, Hu JC. A comparison of the robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2013;65:161–70.
Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK, Talamini MA. The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:107–14. discussion 114–6.
Kim CW, Baik SH. Robotic rectal surgery: what are the benefits? Minerva Chir. 2013;68:457–69.
Araujo SE, Seid VE, Klajner S. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: current immediate clinical and oncological outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:14359–70.
Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:240–8.
Pai A, Melich G, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Prasad LM. Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: a bird’s eye view. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11:29–34.
D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, et al. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1887–95.
Xiong B, Ma L, Huang W, Zhao Q, Cheng Y, Liu J. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(3):516–26.
Scarpinata R, Aly EH. Does robotic rectal cancer surgery offer improved early postoperative outcomes? Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:253–62.
Holzmacher J, Luka S, Agarwal S, Obias VM. The use of robotic and laparoscopic surgical stapling devices during minimally invasive colon and rectal surgery - a comparison. Submitted. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Annual Conference 2015, Boston, MA.
Keller DS, Hashemi L, Lu M, Delaney CP. Short-term outcomes for robotic colorectal surgery by provider volume. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:1063.
Liberman D, Trinh QD, Jeldres C, Zorn KC. Is robotic surgery cost-effective: yes. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22:61–5.
Iranmanesh P, Morel P, Wagner OJ, Inan I, Pugin F, Hagen ME. Set-up and docking of the da Vinci surgical system: prospective analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robot. 2010;6:57–60.
Ahmed K, Ibrahim A, Wang TT, et al. Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery - a systematic review. BJU Int. 2012;110(10):1544–56.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keller, D.S., Haas, E.M. (2017). Robotic Costs. In: Obias, V. (eds) Robotic Colon and Rectal Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43256-4_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43256-4_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43254-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43256-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)