Robot‐assisted versus other types of radical prostatectomy: Population‐based safety and cost comparison in Japan, 2012–2013

Abstract

In 2012, Japanese national insurance started covering robot-assisted surgery. We carried out a population-based comparison between robot-assisted and three other types of radical prostatectomy to evaluate the safety of robot-assisted prostatectomy during its initial year. We abstracted data for 7202 open, 2483 laparoscopic, 1181 minimal incision endoscopic, and 2126 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies for oncological stage T3 or less from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database (April 2012–March 2013). Complication rate, transfusion rate, anesthesia time, postoperative length of stay, and cost were evaluated by pairwise one-to-one propensity-score matching and multivariable analyses with covariants of age, comorbidity, oncological stage, hospital volume, and hospital academic status. The proportion of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies dramatically increased from 8.6% to 24.1% during the first year. Compared with open, laparoscopic, and minimal incision endoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery was generally associated with a significantly lower complication rate (odds ratios, 0.25, 0.20, 0.33, respectively), autologous transfusion rate (0.04, 0.31, 0.10), homologous transfusion rate (0.16, 0.48, 0.14), lower cost excluding operation (differences, −5.1%, −1.8% [not significant], −10.8%) and shorter postoperative length of stay (–9.1%, +0.9% [not significant], –18.5%, respectively). However, robot-assisted surgery also resulted in a + 42.6% increase in anesthesia time and +52.4% increase in total cost compared with open surgery (all P < 0.05). Introduction of robotic surgery led to a dynamic change in prostate cancer surgery. Even in its initial year, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was carried out with several favorable safety aspects compared to the conventional surgeries despite its having the longest anesthesia time and the highest cost.