3-rx.comCustomer Support
HomeAbout UsFAQContactHelp
News Center
Health Centers
Medical Encyclopedia
Drugs & Medications
Diseases & Conditions
Medical Symptoms
Med. Tests & Exams
Surgery & Procedures
Injuries & Wounds
Diet & Nutrition
Special Topics

\"$alt_text\"');"); } else { echo"\"$alt_text\""; } ?>

Join our Mailing List


You are here : 3-RX.com > Home > Cancer - Gender: Female -

Robot doesn’t make cancer surgery cheaper: study

Cancer • • Gender: FemaleSep 06, 10

Minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer is cheaper on a society-wide and hospital level than surgery done with a robotic system or a more invasive hysterectomy, according to a new study.

But the robot still has other benefits that aren’t reflected in the dollars-and-cents calculation, the authors say, such as greater ease and comfort for the surgeon.

More than 43,000 women in the U.S. will be diagnosed with endometrial cancer - cancer that forms in the lining of the uterus - in 2010, according to the National Cancer Institute. About $1.8 billion is spent on treating endometrial cancer each year in the U.S., but it’s unclear how that number will change if more of the surgeries are done robotically.

“I think one of the main arguments people have about robotic surgery is the potential cost associated with it - whether it’s worth it or not,” Dr. Jason Barnett of the San Antonio Military Medical Center, the study’s lead author, told Reuters Health.

To better answer that question, Barnett and his colleagues used models to calculate the hospital’s costs for performing endometrial cancer surgery by the three different methods, all of which have been shown to have a similar rate of success in curing the disease, they say.

They did the same calculation to determine the total costs to society, which factor in lost wages when a woman must take time off from work post-surgery as well as the cost of providing her a caregiver while she heals.

Using the researchers’ cost figures - which they estimated from discussions with hospital accounting departments and from Medicare reimbursement information - the minimally invasive surgery done without the robot was cheapest in both instances. The total cost to society was $10,128 for a minimally invasive surgery, $11,476 for robotic surgery, and $12,847 for a hysterectomy.

When building in the original cost of the robot, hospital fees were $6,581 for minimally invasive surgery, $7,009 for a hysterectomy, and $8,770 for robotic surgery. If the original robot cost wasn’t included, robotic surgery was $7,478 - still more expensive than both other methods.

The researchers found other studies showing that hysterectomies are the quickest of the three surgeries (taking an average of 2 hours, 27 minutes), followed by robotic (3 hours, 12 minutes) and minimally invasive procedures (3 hours, 33 minutes). After the procedures, minimally invasive and robotic surgery patients stayed in the hospital for an average of one day, compared to four days after a hysterectomy. It also took women longer to return to their normal activity levels after a hysterectomy (52 days) than after minimally invasive surgery (32 days) or surgery using the robot (24 days).

Robotic surgery could become a better option financially if hospitals are able to limit the amount they spend on the robot’s disposable parts for each surgery, the researchers write in their article, which is published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Specialized robotic instruments, which the authors estimated would need to be replaced after every 10 surgeries, added nearly $2,400 to the cost of the robotic procedures.

Surgery using the robot - which mimics a surgeon’s movements on electronic instruments - has picked up since the first device was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000. The robot itself costs about $1.65 million, the authors estimate, and can be used for a range of procedures, including surgery for prostate cancer and gastric bypass surgery.

One of the arguments in favor of the robot is that it makes surgery easier on the surgeon, the authors say. It can also help turn what would need to be an invasive procedure in advanced cases of disease into a surgery with smaller incisions and a shorter recovery time. That’s still one of the “obvious benefits” of robotic surgery, Barnett said.

But in situations that would only call for a minimally invasive procedure to begin with, the robot might not offer much advantage - to patients’ health or to patients’ and hospitals’ pocketbooks, as this study shows.

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological cancer in the U.S., the authors note.

“The model ... used in the article is enlightening,” Dr. Tommaso Falcone, the chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Cleveland Clinic, told Reuters Health by e-mail. “But at the end of the day it will depend on the health plan objectives - do we offer treatment (such as minimally invasive surgery) that has been validated by randomized clinical trials or do we accept all technology?” he said.

Over time, robotic surgery may become more cost effective if there is more competition between companies making the robots or doctors start to be more aware of how to limit the cost of disposable equipment, Barnett said.

“I only see robotic surgery rates increasing,” he said. “The study supports the use of minimally invasive approaches,” he continued, “and as we optimize the cost associated with robotic surgery, I think that it will slowly grow into probably a very common way of doing the surgery.”

SOURCE:  Obstetrics & Gynecology, September 2010.

Print Version
comments powered by Disqus

  New biomarkers may influence drug design and alternative treatments of cancer, study shows
  Metabolic profiles distinguish early stage ovarian cancer with unprecedented accuracy
  Moffitt researchers develop first genetic test to predict tumor sensitivity to radiation therapy
  New drug for neuroblastoma shows promise in phase I study
  Experimental treatment sends deadly leukemia into remission
  Study could reduce unnecessary cancer screening
  UA researchers discover component of cinnamon prevents colorectal cancer in mice
  Profiling approach to enable right lung cancer treatment match
  What’s the life expectancy of patients when they begin treatment for osteoporosis?
  Addressing the needs of young women with disorders of sex development
  Fat grafting technique improves results of breast augmentation
  Germline TP53 mutations in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer


Home | About Us | FAQ | Contact | Advertising Policy | Privacy Policy | Bookmark Site