Robotic Single-Site and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecology: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis of a Matched Case-Control Study.

Study Objective: To assess the clinical outcomes and costs associated with robotic single-site (RSS) surgery compared with those of conventional laparoscopy (CL) in gynecology.

Design: Retrospective case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

Setting: University-affiliated community hospital.

Patients: Female patients undergoing RSS or CL gynecologic procedures.

Interventions: Comparison of consecutive RSS gynecologic procedures (cases) undertaken between October 2013 and March 2014 with matched CL procedures (controls) completed during the same time period by the same surgeon.

Measurements And Main Results: Patient demographic data, operative data, and hospital financial data were abstracted from the electronic charts and financial systems. An incremental cost analysis based on the use of disposable equipment was performed. Total hospital charges were determined for matched RSS cases vs CL cases. RSS surgery was completed in 25 out of 33 attempts; 3 cases were aborted before docking, and 5 were converted to a multisite surgery. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to laparotomy. The completed cases included 11 adnexal cases and 14 hysterectomies, 3 of which included pelvic lymph node dissection. Compared with the CL group, total operative times were higher in the RSS group; however, there were no significant between-group differences in estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, or complication rates. Disposable equipment cost per case, direct costs, and total hospital charges were evaluated. RSS was associated with an increased disposable cost per case of $248 to $378, depending on the method used for vaginal cuff closure. The average total hospital charges for matched outpatient adnexal surgery were $15,450 for the CL controls and $18,585 for the RSS cases (p < .001), and the average total hospital charges for matched outpatient benign hysterectomy were $14,623 for the CL controls and $21,412 for the RSS cases (p < .001).

Conclusion: Although RSS surgery and CL have comparable clinical outcomes in selected patients, RSS surgery remains associated with increased incremental disposable cost per case and total hospital charges. Careful case selection and judicious use of equipment are necessary to maximize cost-effectiveness in RSS gynecologic surgery.