Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic cystectomy and urinary diversion

Purpose of review To provide insight into the recently published cost comparisons in the context of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy and to demonstrate the complexity of such economic analyses. Recent findings Most economic evaluations are from a hospital perspective and summarize short-term perioperative therapeutic costs. However, the contributing factors (e.g. study design, included variables, robotic amortization plan, supply contract, surgical volume, surgeons' experience, etc.) vary substantially between the institutions. In addition, a real cost-effective analysis considering cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained is not feasible because of the lack of long-term oncologic and functional outcome data with the robotic procedure. On the basis of a modeled cost analysis using results from published series, robotic-assisted cystectomy was - with few exceptions - found to be more expensive when compared with the open approach. Immediate costs are affected most by operative time, followed by length of hospital stay, robotic supply, case volume, robotic cost, and transfusion rate. Any complication substantially impacts overall costs. Summary Economic cost evaluations are complex analyses influenced by numerous factors that hardly allow an interinstitutional comparison. Robotic-assisted cystectomy is constantly refined with many institutions being somewhere on their learning curve. Transparent reports of oncologic and functional outcome data from centers of expertise applying standardized methods will help to properly analyze the real long-term benefits of robotic surgery and successor technologies and prevent us from becoming slaves of successful marketing strategies.