ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022
Is robotic lobectomy cheaper? A micro-cost analysis.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Economic sustainability of a newly established robotic thoracic surgery programme in a public healthcare system: early experience from a high-volume latin American centre.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- From the Thoracoscope to the Robot: The Evolving Landscape of Minimally Invasive Pulmonary Surgery.Cancers · 2026Review
- Safety and cost-effectiveness of day surgery in Da Vinci-assisted pulmonary segmentectomy.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Exploring the future of robotic approaches in neonatal cardiac surgery: opportunities, barriers, and innovation pathways.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Outcomes of RATS in comparison to VATS and open lung resections for malignancy in propensity matched high-risk patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Adoption of the Robotic Platform across Thoracic Surgeries.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Is RATS Superior to VATS in Thoracic Autonomic Nervous System Surgery?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Outcomes and costs with the introduction of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery in public hospitals.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Lymph node dissection in lung cancer surgery: a comparison between robot-assisted vs. video-assisted thoracoscopic approach.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Long-term outcomes of robotic versus video-assisted pulmonary lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed patient data.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Thoracoscopic surgery in lung cancer: the rise of the robot.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Approaches and outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (RATS) for lung cancer: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Review
- Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Approach to Thoracic Endometriosis Syndrome with Unilateral Diaphragmatic Palsy.Case reports in surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic lung resection: a narrative review of the current role on primary lung cancer treatment.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Higher capital costs and operating room costs associated with Lobectomy via Robot Assisted Thoracic Surgery (RATS) have previously been suggested as the principal contributors to the elevated overall cost. This study uses a micro-costing approach to a previous analysis of clinical outcomes of RATS, Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) and Open Lobectomy to evaluate the most significant cost drivers for the higher cost of robot-assisted lobectomy. A micro-costing model was developed to reflect the pathway of patients from day of surgery through the first 30 days following lobectomy. Costs were provided for RATS, VATS and Open approaches. Sensitivity analysis was performed specifically in the area of staff costs. A threshold sensitivity analysis of the overall cost components was also performed. Total cost per case for the RATS approach was €13,321 for the VATS approach €11,567, and for the Open approach €12,582. The overall cost differences were driven primarily by the elevated consumable costs associated with RATS Lobectomy. Capital costs account for a relatively small proportion of the per-case cost difference. This study presents a detailed analysis of the cost drivers for lobectomy, modelled for the three primary surgical approaches. We believe this is a useful tool for surgeons, hospital management, and service commissioning agencies to accurately and comprehensively determine where cost savings can be applied in their programme to improve the cost-effectiveness of RATS lobectomy.
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.