Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40332686›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

Costs of robot-assisted vs. open approaches for 5 major cancers.

Francesco Di Bello, Natali Rodriguez Peñaranda, Andrea Marmiroli, Mattia Longoni, Fabian Falkenbach, Quynh Chi Le, Michele Nicolazzini, Calogero Catanzaro, Zhe Tian, Jordan A Goyal and 14 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

24 authors.

Francesco Di BelloCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada. fran.dibello12@gmail.com.
Natali Rodriguez PeñarandaCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Andrea MarmiroliCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Mattia LongoniCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Fabian FalkenbachCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Quynh Chi LeCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Michele NicolazziniCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Calogero CatanzaroCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Zhe TianCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Jordan A GoyalCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Claudia Collà RuvoloDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Gianluigi CalifanoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Massimiliano CretaDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Fred SaadCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Salvatore MicaliDepartment of Urology, Ospedale Policlinico e Nuovo Ospedale Civile S. Agostino Estense Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Gennaro MusiDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiVita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Markus GraefenMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Felix H K ChunDepartment of Urology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Alessandro VolpeDivision of Urology, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy.
Eugenio BrunocillaCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Nicola LongoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To test for differences in total hospital cost (THC) between robot-assisted vs. open major cancer surgeries, colectomy, esophagectomy, radical hysterectomy, lung resection and pancreatectomy. Within the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2019), we identified all robot-assisted vs. open procedures for the above stated surgeries. Multivariable Poisson regression models were fitted. Of all surgeries, 6830 (14%) were robot-assisted colectomies, 333 (7%) esophagectomies, 5985 (24%) radical hysterectomies, 6500 (21%) lung resections and 449 (4%) pancreatectomies. Relative to open surgery, robot-assisted esophagectomy (181,462 vs. 96,195 $, Δ = 85,267 $), pancreatectomy (123,872 vs. 95,707 $, Δ = 28,168 $), lung resection (93,910 vs. 80,770 $, Δ = 13,140 $) and colectomy (82,898 vs. 71,279 $, Δ = 11,619 $) were associated with higher THC (all p < 0.001), except for radical hysterectomy (63,793 vs. 62,558 $, p = 0.8). After multivariable adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, robot-assisted esophagectomy (risk ratio [RR]: 1.40), robot-assisted pancreatectomy (RR: 1.24), robot-assisted colectomy (RR: 1.20), robot-assisted lung resection (RR: 1.11) as well as robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RR: 1.10) independently predicted higher THC (all p < 0.001). For the five examined procedures, THC are invariably higher when the robot-assisted approach is used. This THC disadvantage of the robot-assisted approach requires a careful consideration to the other benefits of robotic-assisted surgery, such as shorter convalescence and earlier return to regular activities, that could not be addressed in the current analysis.

Indexed as

Hospital CostsNeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedColectomyEsophagectomyFemaleHumansHysterectomyMaleMiddle AgedPancreatectomyPneumonectomyComplicationsNISSurgery

Identifiers

PMID40332686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.