Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Jul 7;17(11):1-172.
eCollection 2017.

Robotic Surgical System for Radical Prostatectomy: A Health Technology Assessment

Collaborators
Review

Robotic Surgical System for Radical Prostatectomy: A Health Technology Assessment

Health Quality Ontario. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. .

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in Canadian men. Radical prostatectomy is one of the treatment options available, and involves removing the prostate gland and surrounding tissues. In recent years, surgeons have begun to use robot-assisted radical prostatectomy more frequently. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and harms of the robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) compared with the open and laparoscopic surgical methods. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in Ontario.

Methods: We performed a literature search and included prospective comparative studies that examined robot-assisted versus open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The outcomes of interest were perioperative, functional, and oncological. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 1-year time horizon. The potential long-term benefits of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for functional and oncological outcomes were also evaluated in a 10-year Markov model in scenario analyses. In addition, we conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the additional costs to the provincial budget if the adoption of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were to increase in the next 5 years. A needs assessment determined that the published literature on patient perspectives was relatively well developed, and that direct patient engagement would add relatively little new information.

Results: Compared with the open approach, we found robot-assisted radical prostatectomy reduced length of stay and blood loss (moderate quality evidence) but had no difference or inconclusive results for functional and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy had no difference in perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with open radical prostatectomy, our best estimates suggested that robot-assisted prostatectomy was associated with higher costs ($6,234) and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.0012). The best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5.2 million per QALY gained. However, if robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were assumed to have substantially better long-term functional and oncological outcomes, the ICER might be as low as $83,921 per QALY gained. We estimated the annual budget impact to be $0.8 million to $3.4 million over the next 5 years.

Conclusions: There is no high-quality evidence that robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves functional and oncological outcomes compared with open and laparoscopic approaches. However, compared with open radical prostatectomy, the costs of using the robotic system are relatively large while the health benefits are relatively small.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:. PRISMA Flow Diagram for the Clinical Evidence Review
Figure 2:
Figure 2:. Transfusion Rates for Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 3:
Figure 3:. Urinary Continence Outcomes for Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy at 12 Months
Figure 4:
Figure 4:. Erectile Function Outcomes for Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy at 12 Months
Figure 5:
Figure 5:. Overall Positive Surgical Margin Rates for Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 6:
Figure 6:. Positive Surgical Margin Rates in Cancer Stage pT2 for Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 7:
Figure 7:. Positive Surgical Margin Rates in Cancer Stage pT3 for Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 8:
Figure 8:. Mean Operative Time for Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 9:
Figure 9:. Length of Hospital Stay for Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 10:
Figure 10:. Transfusion Rates for Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 11:
Figure 11:. Indwelling Catheterization Duration for Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 12:
Figure 12:. Overall Positive Surgical Margin Rates for Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 13:
Figure 13:. Positive Surgical Margin Rates in pT2 Cancer for Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 14:
Figure 14:. Positive Surgical Margin Rates in pT3 Cancer for Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
Figure 15:
Figure 15:. PRISMA Flow Diagram for the Economic Evidence Review
Figure 16:
Figure 16:. Markov Decision-Analytic Model for Scenario Analyses
Figure 17:
Figure 17:. Process of Estimating Utility Values and QALYs
Figure 18:
Figure 18:. Tornado Diagram of One-Way Sensitivity Analysis, Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomya
Figure 19:
Figure 19:. Incremental Cost and QALYs of Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomya

References

    1. Canadian Cancer Society. Prostate cancer statistics [Internet]. Toronto (ON): The Society; 2016. [cited 2016 Feb 17]. Available from: http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/prostate/statistics
    1. Cancer Care Ontario. Ontario cancer statistics 2016 [Internet]. Toronto (ON): Cancer Care Ontario; 2016. [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=360956
    1. Cancer Quality Council of Ontario. Cancer in Ontario [Internet]. Toronto (ON): The Council; 2016. [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.csqi.on.ca/cancer_in_ontario/
    1. Canadian Cancer Society. Survival statistics for prostate cancer [Internet]. Toronto (ON): The Society; 2016. [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/prostate/prognosi...
    1. Canadian Cancer Society. Stages of prostate cancer [Internet]. Toronto (ON): The Society; 2016. [cited 2016 Feb 4]. Available from: http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/prostate/staging

LinkOut - more resources