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/).