Author
Listed:
- Sophie Bouvet
(CHU Nîmes, Univ Montpellier)
- Sihame Chkair
(CHU Nîmes, Univ Montpellier
INSERM, Univ Montpellier)
- Jean Pierre Daurès
(Languedoc Mutual Group – Hospital and Care Division)
- Sarah Kabani
(CHU Nîmes, Univ Montpellier)
- Thierry Chevallier
(CHU Nîmes, Univ Montpellier
INSERM, Univ Montpellier)
- Eric Lechevallier
(Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Aix-Marseille Université)
- Stéphane Droupy
(CHU Nîmes, Univ Montpellier)
Abstract
Background The economic impact of RARP versus laparoscopic (LRP) or open surgical radical prostatectomy (OSRP) is unclear. The objective is to estimate and compare the total cost of radical prostatectomy with and without robot assistance from the French establishment perspective. This estimate can assess the cost benefit of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and determine who should pay. Methods A micro-costing bottom-up time-and-motion approach was used based on 2018 prices (€). In public hospitals, observed data for OSRP and RARP was used; in private hospitals, expert opinions were sought from clinicians for RARP and LRP. Average costs, costs per minute of surgery and costs per expenditure were compared between techniques. A sensitivity analysis accounted for variability in cost of personnel and amortized cost of Da Vinci robot. Results The average estimated cost of surgery was 4683.35€ [95% CI=2900; 6467.2] more for RARP versus LRP in private clinics, and 3744€ [95% CI=3525; 3963] for RARP versus OSRP in public hospital. Recovery costs were equivalent between techniques (112.9€ for RARP and LRP in private and 46.1€ [95% CI=31.8; 60.4] for OSRP and 47.8€ [95% CI=39.1; 56.5] for RARP in public hospital). The sensitivity analysis confirmed the extra cost for RARP versus LRP or OSRP. Conclusions Depending on the surgery compared (OSRP or LRP), institute type (public or private) and data source (observed or expert opinion), the extra cost of the robot varied from 3744€ to 4683.35€. The amortized cost of the robot and its specific materials were the main elements of the difference. Trial registration This comparative, multi-centre economic study combines one secondary objective from the RoboProstate study (NCT01577836) and part 1 of the OptiPRobot study (IRB #19.07.03).
Suggested Citation
Sophie Bouvet & Sihame Chkair & Jean Pierre Daurès & Sarah Kabani & Thierry Chevallier & Eric Lechevallier & Stéphane Droupy, 2025.
"Robot-assisted approach versus open surgery and conventional laparoscopy for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a micro-costing study,"
Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-025-00652-5
DOI: 10.1186/s13561-025-00652-5
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-025-00652-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.