Approaches for hysterectomy and implementation of robot-assisted surgery in benign gynaecological disease: A cost analysis study in a large university hospital

Abstract

BackgroundAs a minimally invasive technique, robot-assisted hysterectomy (RAH) offers surgical advantages and significant reduction in morbidity compared to open surgery. Despite the increasing use of RAH in benign gynaecology, there is limited data on its cost-effectiveness, especially in a European context. Our goal is to assess the costs of the different hysterectomy approaches, to describe their clinical outcomes, and to evaluate the impact of introduction of RAH on the rates of different types of hysterectomy. MethodsA retrospective single-centre cost-analysis was performed for patients undergoing a hysterectomy for benign indications. Abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and RAH were included. We considered the costs of operating room and hospital stay for the different hysterectomy techniques using the “Activity Centre–Care program model”. We report on intra- and postoperative complications for the different approaches as well as their cost relationship. ResultsBetween January 2014 and December 2021, 830 patients were operated; 67 underwent VH (8%), 108 LAVH (13%), 351 LH (42%), 148 RAH (18%) and 156 AH (19%).After the implementation and learning curve of a dedicated program for RAH in 2018, AH declined from 27.3% in 2014–2017, to 22.1% in 2018 and 6.9 % in 2019–2021.The reintervention rate was 3–4% for all surgical techniques. Pharmacological interventions and blood transfusions were performed after AH in 28%, and in 17–22% of the other approaches.AH had the highest hospital stay cost with an average of €2236.40. Mean cost of the hospital stay ranged from €1136.77-€1560.66 for minimally invasive techniques.The average total costs for RAH were €6528.10 compared to €4400.95 for AH. ConclusionImplementation of RAH resulted in a substantial decrease of open surgery rate. However, RAH remains the most expensive technique in our cohort, mainly due to high material and depreciation costs. Therefore, RAH should not be considered for every patient, but for those who would otherwise need more invasive surgery, with higher risk of complications. Future prospective studies should focus on the societal costs and patient reported outcomes, in order to do cost-benefit analysis and further evaluate the exact value of RAH in the current healthcare setting.