ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2020
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative cost-effectiveness study.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does robotic intersphincteric resection better preserve anal function in low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Economic Evaluation of 'Watch and Wait' Following Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
- Economic, resource-use, and adoption signals in the robotic colorectal surgery literature: a bibliometric and visualization study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot‑assisted cholecystectomy with the new da Vinci SPUpdates in surgery · 2025Article
- Increasing robotic rectal cancer surgery may not increase total hospital costs.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Transitioning to da Vinci Xi for colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective cohort study of 102 cases from a UK centre with a structured robotic programme.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Non-Adherence to Peripheral Venous Catheter Care Protocols Significantly Decreases Patient Safety and Impacts Costs: A Retrospective Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes from a Tertiary Referral Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving resections have similar peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes in female patients with rectal cancer.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis using the Japanese Nationwide diagnosis procedure combination database.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Article
- Economic evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery.Cancers · 2023Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES).Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Mesorectal Excision for Cancer of the High Rectum: A Single-Center Study with Propensity Score Matching Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe differences between the costs of robotic rectal resection and of the laparoscopic approach are still not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.
methodsWe conducted an observational, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study on patients having laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection between February 2014 and March 2018 at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). The primary endpoint was to compare cost effectiveness in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY was used as a threshold to determine the most cost-effective treatment.
resultsA total of 81 RRR and 104 LRR were included. The mean operative costs were higher for RRR (4307.09€ versus 3834.58€; p = 0.04), although mean overall costs were similar (7272.03€ for RRR and 6968.63€ for the LLR; p = 0.44). Mean QALYs at 1 year for the RRR group (0.8482) was higher than that associated with LRR (0.6532) (p = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ there was a 95.54% and 97.18% probability, respectively, that RRR was more cost-effective than LRR.
conclusionsOur data regarding the cost-effectiveness of RRR versus LRR shows a benefit for RRR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.