Objective To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence. Methods Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest. Results Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as “favored,” 32% categorized as “reject,” and the remaining 5% ranked as “unclear.” Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Conclusions Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

Background In the last 30 years, significant progress in the field of surgery has been achieved with the advent of robotic surgery. In this study, we aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis to identify the distribution and characteristics overall and of the top 100 most-cited studies about robotic surgery versus open surgery. Methods A systematic search was conducted on March 26, 2021 using Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers independently screened documents, and the top 100 most-cited studies were identified. Excel 2019 and VOSviewer were used to collect the data, and visual information was obtained. Results A total of 2306 documents were searched from the Web of Science Core Collection, and 1065 journals and 2913 institutes were extracted. A significant growth was observed in the last 15 years. The number of citations from the United States accounted for 33.31% of the total number of citations. There were nine American institutes and one Swedish institute in the top 10 institutes. Four journals in the field of urology or gynecology were present in the top 10 published journals. Few global communications between authors, institutes, and countries authors were observed. Conclusion The lack of close cooperation among scientific research institutions may have affected the industrialization process of surgical robots. Some developing countries, including South America and Africa, should seize the development opportunity of robotic surgery to improve the level of domestic research on robotic surgery.

The aim of this study was to explore and analyze the main features of the top 100 most-cited original articles, systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of robotic surgery, through scientometric analysis. VOSviewer and Excel 2019 were employed to conduct this scientometric study. We found that the majority of original articles (72/100) were published during the 2000s, while the majority of the top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs (91/100) during the 2010s. The USA was the most dominant country (n = 78), Henry Ford Health System was the most productive institution (n = 10), and Menon M was the largest contributing first author (n = 5) of the top 100 most-cited original articles. The USA was the most dominant country (n = 33), University of Padua was the most productive institution (n = 9), and Ficarra V was the largest contributing first author (n = 4) of the top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs. The top 100 most cited original articles in robotic surgery have focused on the feasibility, outcomes and learning curve of robotic surgery for various neoplasms and cancers. The top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs have focused on the differences between robotic surgery and other types of surgery, with respect to the learning curve, costs, outcomes and experience in treating neoplasms, cancer and other diseases. In the future, the formation of cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary cooperation teams should be promoted and corresponding regulations and standards for specific diseases should be developed to regulate and promote the development of robotic surgery. (c) 2021 Asian Surgical Association and Taiwan Robotic Surgery Association. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Prostate cancer (PCa) treatment has been greatly impacted by the robotic surgery. The economics literature about PCa is scarce. We aim to carry-out cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) using the time-driven activity-based cost methodology. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in 2013 were retrospectively analyzed in a cancer center over a 5-year period. Fifty-six patients underwent RALP and 149 patients underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The amounts were subject to a 5% discount as correction of monetary value considering time elapsed. Calculation of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) related to events avoided and the Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) related to QALY saved were performed. QALY was performed using values of utility and disutility weights from the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Hypothetical cohorts were simulated with 1000 patients in each group, based on the treatment outcomes. Total and average costs were R$1,903,671.93, and R$12,776.32 for the RRP group, and R$1,373,987.26, and R$24,535.49 for the RALP group, respectively. The costs to treat the hypothetical cohorts were R$10,010,582.35 for RRP, and R$19,224,195.90 for RALP. ICER calculation evidenced R$9,213,613.55 of difference between groups. ICUR was R$ 22,690.83 per QALY saved. Limitations were the lack of cost-effectiveness analyses related to re-hospitalization rates and complications, single center perspective, and currency-translation differences. Medical fees were not included. RALP showed advantages in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility over RRP in the long term. Despite the increased costs to the introduction of robotic technology, its adoption should be encouraged due to the gains.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this integrative literature review is to examine the evidence on factors affecting patient safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. DESIGN: Systematic review of papers published between 2011 and 2016 that identified factors affecting safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries, in the areas of colorectal, general, urological, and gynecological surgeries. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, and Medline databases were performed. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria outlining factors affecting safety in robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. All 12 studies selected were quality appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. FINDINGS: Using thematic analysis, the outcomes from the 12 studies were categorized into three thematic categories. Intraoperative communication, teamwork, and disruptions are the key factors affecting patient safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: This integrative literature review identifies a dearth of evidence examining factors affecting patient safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. It draws attention to the complexities with teamwork, intraoperative communication and disruptions during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. Although robotic-assisted surgery is generally seen as safe and effective, this review highlights the need for education and training that focuses on non-technical skills development, disruption prevention and alertness in anticipating and minimising risk. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The evidence from this review identifies the different demands and diverse challenges in maintaining safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery. Although specific technical knowledge and skills are essential, this review highlights the importance of developing new ways of thinking with regard to assessment and management of disruptions, developing different teamwork patterns and communication skills, and overcoming challenges introduced during technology advanced surgeries. Nurses in the perioperative setting have an increased responsibility to continue professional development and remain vigilant to factors affecting patient safety. Early identification and management of factors leading to disruptions is imperative in the provision of safe perioperative care.

CONTEXT: No single large published randomized controlled trial (RCT) has confirmed the efficacy of virtual simulators in the acquisition of skills to the standard required for safe clinical robotic surgery. This remains the main obstacle for the adoption of these virtual simulators in surgical residency curricula. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the level of evidence in published studies on the efficacy of training on virtual simulators for robotic surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: In April 2015 a literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, the Clinical Trials Database (US) and the Meta Register of Controlled Trials. All publications were scrutinized for relevance to the review and for assessment of the levels of evidence provided using the classification developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The publications included in the review consisted of one RCT and 28 cohort studies on validity, and seven RCTs and two cohort studies on skills transfer from virtual simulators to robot-assisted surgery. Simulators were rated good for realism (face validity) and for usefulness as a training tool (content validity). However, the studies included used various simulation training methodologies, limiting the assessment of construct validity. The review confirms the absence of any consensus on which tasks and metrics are the most effective for the da Vinci Skills Simulator and dV-Trainer, the most widely investigated systems. Although there is consensus for the RoSS simulator, this is based on only two studies on construct validity involving four exercises. One study on initial evaluation of an augmented reality module for partial nephrectomy using the dV-Trainer reported high correlation (r=0.8) between in vivo porcine nephrectomy and a virtual renorrhaphy task according to the overall Global Evaluation Assessment of Robotic Surgery (GEARS) score. In one RCT on skills transfer, the experimental group outperformed the control group, with a significant difference in overall GEARS score (p=0.012) during performance of urethrovesical anastomosis on an inanimate model. Only one study included assessment of a surgical procedure on real patients: subjects trained on a virtual simulator outperformed the control group following traditional training. However, besides the small numbers, this study was not randomized. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for a large, well-designed, preferably multicenter RCT to study the efficacy of virtual simulation for acquisition competence in and safe execution of clinical robotic-assisted surgery. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature on virtual simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Validity studies used various simulation training methodologies. It is not clear which exercises and metrics are the most effective in distinguishing different levels of experience on the da Vinci robot. There is no reported evidence of skills transfer from simulation to clinical surgery on real patients