ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Two strategies to reduce costs of robotic-assisted surgery in benign gynaecological cases: a German model for intraoperative cost minimisation and counteracting the shortage of physicians.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dissemination of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological conditions may be delayed due to concerns about incremental system and instrument costs, without considering associated potential efficiencies and cost savings. This retrospective, single-centre study aims to analyse the feasibility, safety, and potential intraoperative financial savings of omitting the assisting physician (AP) and the fourth EndoWrist©-arm (FEWA). Consecutive patients are enrolled and stratified in terms of the omission of AP and FEWA. Console time, cut-seam time, theatre-block time, complications, and the duration of hospitalisation are used to prove feasibility and safety. The personnel and material costs are calculated and interpreted via the InEK (Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus) cost matrix of the Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG). The data of 55 consecutive women were analysed. No differences in terms of feasibility or safety were detected (all p values > 0.05). Omitting the AP results in a significant staff cost reduction of €0.84 (19.1%) per operating room minute (p < 0.001). These savings translate into a total amount of €79.12 per procedure (12.5% of personnel costs of €633.47 within the InEK). The omission of the FEWA saves €115.16 per procedure (23.04% of the material costs of €499.63 within the InEK). The omission of AP and FEWA in RAS for benign gynaecological conditions appears feasible without an immediately detectable signal of harm in this small cohort, justifying a larger prospective evaluation. The potential savings in terms of personnel and material costs represent a relevant portion of the provided amount within the InEK and should thereby facilitate the further dissemination of RAS in this field of gynaecology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42126499What 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.