Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33522941›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the Australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload.

Kate McBride, Daniel Steffens, Christina Stanislaus, Michael Solomon, Teresa Anderson, Ruban Thanigasalam, Scott Leslie, Paul G Bannon

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Advances in Techniques in Radical Prostatectomy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kate McBrideRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. kate.mcbride@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4898-7230
Daniel SteffensSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Christina StanislausRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael SolomonRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Teresa AndersonRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ruban ThanigasalamRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Scott LeslieRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Paul G BannonRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUNew South Wales Department of Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA barrier to the uptake of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to be the perceived high costs. A lack of detailed costing information has made it difficult for public hospitals in particular to determine whether use of the technology is justified. This study aims to provide a detailed description of the patient episode costs and the contribution of RAS specific costs for multiple specialties in the public sector.

methodsA retrospective descriptive costing review of all RAS cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from August 2016 to December 2018 was completed. This included RAS cases within benign gynaecology, cardiothoracic, colorectal and urology, with the total costs described utilizing various inpatient costing data, and RAS specific implementation, maintenance and consumable costs.

resultsOf 211 RAS patients, substantial variation was found between specialties with the overall median cost per patient being $19,269 (Interquartile range (IQR): $15,445 to $32,199). The RAS specific costs were $8828 (46%) made up of fixed costs including $4691 (24%) implementation and $2290 (12%) maintenance, both of which are volume dependent; and $1848 (10%) RAS consumable costs. This was in the context of 37% robotic theatre utilisation.

conclusionsThere is considerable variation across surgical specialties for the cost of RAS. It is important to highlight the different cost components and drivers associated with a RAS program including its dependence on volume and how it fits within funding systems in the public sector.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAustraliaHumansPublic HealthPublic SectorRetrospective StudiesCost analysisHealthcare financingPublic sectors, minimally invasive surgeryRobotic-assisted surgery

Identifiers

PMID33522941
PMCPMC7849115
OpenAlexW3128575043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.