Cost-effectiveness analysis of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: laparoscopic vs. robot assisted.
Bariatric surgery
Cost analysis
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-utility
Revisional surgery
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Journal
Updates in surgery
ISSN: 2038-3312
Titre abrégé: Updates Surg
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101539818
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
02
08
2022
accepted:
14
11
2022
pubmed:
25
11
2022
medline:
14
1
2023
entrez:
24
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is controversy over the possible advantages of the robotic technology in revisional bariatric surgery. The aim of this study is to report the experience of a high-volume bariatric center on revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with robot-assisted (R-rRYGB) and laparoscopic (L-rRYGB) approaches, with regards to operative outcomes and costs. Patients who underwent R-rRYGB and L-rRYGB between 2008 and 2021 were included. Patients' baseline characteristics and perioperative data were recorded. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative morbidity. A full economic evaluation was performed. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed on laparoscopic anastomotic leak and reoperation rates. A total of 194 patients were included: 44 (22.7%) L-rRYGB and 150 (77.3%) R-rRYGB. The robotic approach was associated with lower overall complication rate (10% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.038), longer operative time, and a reduced length of stay compared to L-rRYGB. R-rRYGB was more expensive than L-rRYGB (mean difference 2401.1€, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was 18,906.3€/complication and the incremental cost-utility ratio was 48,022.0€/QALY (quality-adjusted life years), that is below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Decision tree analysis showed that L-rRYGB was the most cost-effective strategy in the base-case scenario; a probability of leak ≥ 13%, or a probability of reoperation ≥ 14% following L-rRYGB, or a 12.7% reduction in robotic costs would be required for R-rRYGB to become the most cost-effective strategy. R-rRYGB was associated with higher costs than L-rRYGB in our base-case scenario. However, it is an acceptable alternative from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36422812
doi: 10.1007/s13304-022-01425-z
pii: 10.1007/s13304-022-01425-z
pmc: PMC9834166
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
189-196Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020 Mar;16(3):397-405
pubmed: 31932204
Am J Manag Care. 2010 Jul 01;16(7):e174-87
pubmed: 20645663
Ann Surg. 2016 Nov;264(5):871-877
pubmed: 27429035
Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb;28(2):414-26
pubmed: 24196545
Obes Surg. 2020 Jan;30(1):11-17
pubmed: 31372875
Chirurgia (Bucur). 2021 Jan-Feb;116(1):7-15
pubmed: 33638321
Obes Surg. 2012 Jan;22(1):52-61
pubmed: 21538177
Obes Surg. 2015 Nov;25(11):2180-9
pubmed: 26344797
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733-44
pubmed: 18767894
Surg Endosc. 2021 Aug;35(8):4200-4205
pubmed: 32857240
Obes Surg. 2018 Jul;28(7):2083-2091
pubmed: 29748735
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):e1-5
pubmed: 23538200
Obes Surg. 2018 Nov;28(11):3691-3700
pubmed: 30178157
Obes Surg. 2021 Nov;31(11):5022-5033
pubmed: 34410582
Obes Surg. 2015 Jul;25(7):1271-80
pubmed: 25893649
Int J Med Robot. 2014 Jun;10(2):213-7
pubmed: 24167029
Cent Eur J Oper Res. 2018;26(1):135-159
pubmed: 29375266
Obes Surg. 2021 Apr;31(4):1656-1663
pubmed: 33392998
Visc Med. 2020 Jun;36(3):238-245
pubmed: 32775356
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014 Sep-Oct;10(5):952-72
pubmed: 24776071
Int J Med Robot. 2011 Dec;7(4):393-400
pubmed: 22113976
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Obes Surg. 2016 Dec;26(12):3031-3044
pubmed: 27726045
Obes Surg. 2018 Jul;28(7):1852-1859
pubmed: 29417487