Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience

Luca Morelli; Gregorio Di Franco; Valentina Lorenzoni; Simone Guadagni; Matteo Palmeri; Niccolò Furbetta; Desirée Gianardi; Matteo Bianchini; Giovanni Caprili; Franco Mosca; Giuseppe Turchetti; Alfred Cuschieri

doi:10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9

Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience

Luca Morelli (Lead / Corresponding author), Gregorio Di Franco, Valentina Lorenzoni, Simone Guadagni, Matteo Palmeri, Niccolò Furbetta, Desirée Gianardi, Matteo Bianchini, Giovanni Caprili, Franco Mosca, Giuseppe Turchetti, Alfred Cuschieri

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

43 Citations (Scopus)

334 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Robotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon’s experience.

Methods: From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency–gain curve (p–g curve) by the surgeon with each platform.

Results: In both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p–g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1–19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20–40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290 min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Our experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon’s experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1858-1869
Number of pages	12
Journal	Surgical Endoscopy
Volume	33
Early online date	24 Sept 2018
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9
Publication status	Published - Jun 2019

Keywords

Da Vinci Si
Da Vinci Xi
Rectal cancer
Robotic surgery
Structured costs analysis
TME

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Surgery

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9

Author Accepted Manuscript
This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Surgical Endoscopy. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9/
Accepted author manuscript, 242 KB

Cite this

Morelli, L., Di Franco, G., Lorenzoni, V., Guadagni, S., Palmeri, M., Furbetta, N., Gianardi, D., Bianchini, M., Caprili, G., Mosca, F., Turchetti, G., & Cuschieri, A. (2019). Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience. Surgical Endoscopy, 33, 1858-1869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9

@article{1e45e3d1f4a94759b33a4989b328e45e,

title = "Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience",

abstract = "Background: Robotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon{\textquoteright}s experience.Methods: From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency–gain curve (p–g curve) by the surgeon with each platform.Results: In both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p–g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1–19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20–40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290 min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Our experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon{\textquoteright}s experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.",

keywords = "Da Vinci Si, Da Vinci Xi, Rectal cancer, Robotic surgery, Structured costs analysis, TME",

author = "Luca Morelli and {Di Franco}, Gregorio and Valentina Lorenzoni and Simone Guadagni and Matteo Palmeri and Niccol{\`o} Furbetta and Desir{\'e}e Gianardi and Matteo Bianchini and Giovanni Caprili and Franco Mosca and Giuseppe Turchetti and Alfred Cuschieri",

year = "2019",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9",

language = "English",

volume = "33",

pages = "1858--1869",

journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",

issn = "0930-2794",

publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

Morelli, L, Di Franco, G, Lorenzoni, V, Guadagni, S, Palmeri, M, Furbetta, N, Gianardi, D, Bianchini, M, Caprili, G, Mosca, F, Turchetti, G & Cuschieri, A 2019, 'Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience', Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 33, pp. 1858-1869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9

TY - JOUR

T1 - Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer

T2 - a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience

AU - Morelli, Luca

AU - Di Franco, Gregorio

AU - Lorenzoni, Valentina

AU - Guadagni, Simone

AU - Palmeri, Matteo

AU - Furbetta, Niccolò

AU - Gianardi, Desirée

AU - Bianchini, Matteo

AU - Caprili, Giovanni

AU - Mosca, Franco

AU - Turchetti, Giuseppe

AU - Cuschieri, Alfred

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - Background: Robotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon’s experience.Methods: From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency–gain curve (p–g curve) by the surgeon with each platform.Results: In both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p–g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1–19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20–40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290 min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Our experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon’s experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.

AB - Background: Robotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon’s experience.Methods: From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency–gain curve (p–g curve) by the surgeon with each platform.Results: In both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p–g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1–19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20–40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290 min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Our experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon’s experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.

KW - Da Vinci Si

KW - Da Vinci Xi

KW - Rectal cancer

KW - Robotic surgery

KW - Structured costs analysis

KW - TME

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053774923&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9

DO - 10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 30251144

SN - 0930-2794

VL - 33

SP - 1858

EP - 1869

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

ER -

Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this