ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
A cost comparison between patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery with and without a clinical pathway.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical pathways (CPs) are guidelines to standardize processes, improve quality of care and maximize resources through the implementation of evidence-based care for a medical procedure, thus reducing variation and risk. Our aim was to evaluate the cost of care for robotic colorectal surgery using a CP compared to surgery without a CP.
methodsThis was a non-interventional micro-costing study with a hospital-level perspective. It was carried out using the three standard steps. First, all resources involved in the implementation of the CP were identified. Second, resource consumption was measured. Third, the resources identified were valued and measured to estimate the average cost per group. This included the costs related to perioperative care and treatment of complications. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted based on the hypothetical capacity utilization of the robotic equipment, costs of CP development and a discount rate of 3% over a period of five years.
resultsThe study population comprised 63 patients: 21 in the CP group (robotic colorectal surgery with CP) and 42 in the no-CP group (robotic colorectal surgery without CP). The mean cost per patient in the CP group was €12,663 (range: €8,093 to €26,475), whereas in the no-CP group it was €11,128 (range: €8,357 to €17,268). The main cost drivers in the CP group were materials and disposables (33% of total costs) and staff (20% of total costs). In the no-CP group, they accounted for 38% and 20% of total costs, respectively. The CP group was used for the sensitivity analysis. In year 1, at 100% utilization the mean cost per patient was €12,364, increasing to €17,883 at 20% utilization. In year 5, at 100% utilization the mean cost per patient was €13,986, rising to €20,519 at 20% utilization.
conclusionThe evidence from our study indicates that using a CP for perioperative care of patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in cost of care.
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.