Purpose: To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany. Methods: Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized health insurance research database from Germany containing data of patients who underwent robotic-assisted or open radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre study. Results: Significantly better outcomes after robotic-assisted vs. open prostatectomy were observed in regards to positive surgical margins (13.3 vs. 22.4%; p < 0.0001), intraoperative transfusions (0.1 vs. 2.6%; p < 0.0001), hospitalization (8.7 vs. 15.2 days; p < 0.0001) and duration of catheter (6.6 vs. 12.8 days; p < 0.0001). Operating time was significantly longer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when compared to open surgery (184.4 vs. 128.0 min; p < 0.0001), while intraoperative complications showed a similar occurrence between both groups. Significant fewer postoperative complications were observed after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (26.5 vs. 42.5%; p < 0.0001) and rate of re-admission was lower for the robotic patients (13.6 vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0050). While insurance costs were higher in the 2 years before radical prostatectomy for the patients who underwent a robotic procedure (4,241.60 vs. 3,410.23 €; p = 0.202), additive costs of care of the year of surgery plus the 2 following years were less for the robotic cohort when compared to the costs incurred by the open group (21,673.71 vs. 24,512.37 €; p = 0.1676). Conclusions: The observed clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy seem to result in reduced health insurance cost postoperatively when compared to open surgery. This should be taken into consideration regarding reimbursement and implementation of a clinically superior method.

Keywords:
Prostatectomy, Costs, DRG, Reimbursement, da Vinci, Robotic
1.
DGFU: Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms Version 1.03 - März 2011.
3.
Moran PS, et al: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 2013;20:312-321.
4.
Trinh QD, et al: Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 2012;61:679-685.
5.
Kube R, et al: [Clinical value of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer]. Chirurg 2008;79:1145-1150.
6.
Küper MA, et al: Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malign diseases of the digestive system: indications, limitations, and evidence. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:4883-4891.
7.
Hagen ME, et al: [The da Vinci surgical system in digestive surgery]. Rev Med Suisse 2007;3:1622-1626.
8.
Rassweiler J, et al: Heilbronn laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol 2001;40:54-64.
9.
Ballantyne GH: Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1389-1402.
10.
Hagen ME, et al: Impact of IQ, computer-gaming skills, general dexterity, and laparoscopic experience on performance with the da Vinci surgical system. Int J Med Robot 2009;5:327-331.
11.
Mohr FW, et al: Computer-enhanced ‘robotic' cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;121:842-853.
12.
Tewari A, et al: Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:1-15.
13.
Ficarra V, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:418-430.
14.
Novara G, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:382-404.
15.
Kowalczyk KJ, et al: Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2012;30:85-89.
16.
Billia M, et al: Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after more than 5 years. World J Urol 2014;32:413-418.
17.
Liu JJ, et al: Perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic compared with open prostatectomy using the national surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP) database. Urology 2013;82:579-583.
18.
Pilecki MA, et al: National multi-institutional comparison of 30-day postoperative complication and readmission rates between open retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using NSQIP. J Endourol 2014;28:430-436.
19.
Davison BJ, Matthew A, Gardner AM: Prospective comparison of the impact of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy on health-related quality of life and decision regret. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8:E68-E72.
20.
Gandaglia G, et al: Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer? Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments. J Endourol 2014;28:784-791.
21.
Hu JC, et al: Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 2014;66:666-672.
22.
Ficarra V, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405-417.
23.
NNIfHaC: Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment, 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/14348/66226/66226.pdf.
24.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason MD, Matveev V, Mottet N, van der Kwast TH, Wiegel T, Zattoni F: Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology, 2013. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/09_Prostate_Cancer_LR.pdf.
25.
Froehner M, et al: Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 2013;90:312-315.
26.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
27.
Bolenz C, et al: Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014;65:316-324.
28.
Cooperberg MR, et al: Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis. BJU Int 2013;111:437-450.
29.
Close A, et al: Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK national health service. Eur Urol 2013;64:361-369.
31.
Li K, et al: Risk factors of positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence of patients treated with radical prostatectomy: a single-center 10-year report. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124:1001-1005.
33.
Novara G, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:431-452.
34.
Ramsay C, et al: Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012;16:1-313.
35.
Davis JW, et al: Learning curve assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open-surgery controls from the premier perspective database. J Endourol 2014;28:560-566.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.