ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Allowable robot-related material cost as a contribution margin threshold for financial sustainability of robot-assisted urologic surgery.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted surgery offers well-recognized clinical advantages; however, its financial sustainability at the institutional level varies substantially across procedures and healthcare systems. We evaluated the institutional financial implications of robot-assisted urological surgery using an allowable cost framework designed to clarify how robot-related expenditures restrict practical robotic resource utilization. The allowable robot-related material cost (ARMC) was defined as the maximum robot-related variable material cost at which robot-assisted surgery achieves contribution margin equivalence with conventional laparoscopic surgery under existing reimbursement conditions. ARMC was calculated for representative urological procedures, including adrenalectomy, radical nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy, and radical cystectomy. For adrenalectomy, ARMC adjusted for operative time was additionally calculated to assess time-based economic efficiency and the impact of operative duration on contribution margin. ARMC values were 24,903 yen for adrenalectomy, 46,472 yen for radical nephrectomy, − 7,139 yen for nephroureterectomy, and 92,591 yen for radical cystectomy. The negative ARMC for nephroureterectomy indicates that contribution margin equivalence was not observed under current reimbursement and cost structures. In adrenalectomy, ARMC increased to 70,415 yen after adjustment for operative time, suggesting improved procedural efficiency and highlighting the economic importance of operative duration. Based on this allowable threshold, routine use of a three-arm configuration, including one camera arm, was necessary to maintain contribution margin equivalence. The financial impact of robot-assisted urological surgery is highly procedure dependent. The ARMC framework quantitatively defines procedure-specific tolerance for robot-related variable costs and clarifies practical constraints on robotic resource allocation, providing a pragmatic institutional framework for maintaining financial sustainability while preserving clinical benefit.
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.