Economic analysis of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia versus laparoscopic: is it sustainable for the healthcare system?

introductionThere has been a rapid proliferation of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia, mainly in the United States, as it has shown similar outcomes to the laparoscopic approach but with a significant increase in associated costs. Our objective is to conduct a cost analysis in our setting (Spanish National Health System). MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective single-center comparative study on inguinal hernia repair using a robotic approach versus laparoscopic approach.

resultsA total of 98 patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair between October 2021 and July 2023 were analyzed. Out of these 98 patients, 20 (20.4%) were treated with the robotic approach, while 78 (79.6%) underwent the laparoscopic approach. When comparing both approaches, no significant differences were found in terms of complications, recurrences, or readmissions. However, the robotic group exhibited a longer surgical time (86 ± 33.07 min vs. 40 ± 14.46 min, p < 0.001), an extended hospital stays (1.6 ± 0.503 days vs. 1.13 ± 0.727 days, p < 0.007), as well as higher procedural costs (2318.63 ± 205.15 € vs. 356.81 ± 110.14 €, p < 0.001) and total hospitalization costs (3272.48 ± 408.49 € vs. 1048.61 ± 460.06 €, p < 0.001). These results were consistent when performing subgroup analysis for unilateral and bilateral hernias.

conclusionsThe benefits observed in terms of recurrence rates and post-surgical complications do not justify the additional costs incurred by the robotic approach to inguinal hernia within the national public healthcare system. Nevertheless, it represents a simpler way to initiate the robotic learning curve, justifying its use in a training context.