|View printer-friendly version|
|Cost Comparisons Draw Different Conclusions in Review of Robotic-Assisted, Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Hysterectomy|
One study (Wright, et al) found robotic-assisted hysterectomy to be more costly than laparoscopic hysterectomy, which is a traditional minimally invasive method. Unlike Wright, the other study (Leitao, et al) also included an open surgery group for comparison. Leitao found robotic-assisted hysterectomy to be less expensive than open hysterectomy, but more expensive than laparoscopic hysterectomy if the costs of acquiring the robotic system are included. However, Leitao noted that the added cost of robotics could be neutralized if its usage replaces more costly open surgery. Leitao observed an overall average savings of
The Wright study analyzed data from the Premier Perspective database, which collects data from multiple institutions. This study included 169,324 women who had minimally invasive hysterectomies for non-cancerous conditions. It also looked at 10,906 women who had a minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. The Wright study cost data reflect a range of accounting methods, which makes them difficult to compare accurately. The study did not include detailed clinical outcomes data to compare complication rates. It also did not include an open surgery group. Therefore, the study could not assess the effect of robotic-assisted surgery adoption on the rates of open surgeries.
The Leitao study analyzed data from
"When performing a full economic review comparing surgical approaches to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each approach, it is important to consider clinical outcomes," said
Since the introduction of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery in 2005, the number of open hysterectomies performed for women with both non-cancerous and cancerous conditions has decreased dramatically. This decrease has been in direct proportion to the increase in robotic-assisted procedures. Laparoscopy has also continued to grow in numbers. These trends strongly indicate that minimally invasive surgery is replacing open surgery. As of 2013, approximately 33 percent of hysterectomies for non-cancerous conditions and 76 percent of cancer-related hysterectomies were performed using minimally invasive robotic-assisted surgery.
Neither Leitao nor Wright conducted randomized, controlled studies. Leitao notes that another potential limitation of their analysis was that they did not fully account for possible differences in the patients' disease and overall health, which could have had an impact on outcomes given the small number of open surgeries.
The study authors disclosed the following financial interests: Dr. Leitao is a surgical proctor and consultant for
About the da Vinci Surgical System
The da Vinci Surgical System is a surgical platform designed to enable complex surgery using a minimally invasive approach. The da Vinci Surgical System consists of an ergonomic surgeon console or consoles, a patient-side cart with three or four interactive arms, a high-performance vision system and proprietary EndoWrist® instruments. Powered by state-of-the-art technology, the da Vinci Surgical System is designed to scale, filter and seamlessly translate the surgeon's hand movements into the more precise movements of the EndoWrist instruments. The net result is an intuitive interface with improved surgical capabilities. By providing surgeons with superior visualization, enhanced dexterity, greater precision and ergonomic comfort, the da Vinci Surgical System makes it possible for skilled surgeons to perform more minimally invasive procedures involving complex dissection or reconstruction. Potential benefits are specific to the procedure as well as the model da
All surgery presents risk, including da
Risks specific to minimally invasive surgery, including da
Patients who bleed easily, who have abnormal blood clotting, are pregnant or morbidly obese may not be candidates for minimally invasive surgery, including da
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates reflecting the best judgment of our management and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements should, therefore, be considered in light of various important factors, including those under the heading "Risk Factors" in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended