Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Robotic surgery (RS) in colorectal procedures is growing but remains costly. This study evaluated the cost-saving potential of hybrid robotic surgery (hybrid RS), which integrates laparoscopic devices, compared to conventional RS (pure RS).</p> Methods <p>This single-center retrospective study (2022–2024) compared pure RS and hybrid RS for sigmoid and rectosigmoid cancers. Propensity score matching minimizes bias. Total revenue is calculated as the total fee minus the total cost.</p> Results <p>After matching, 20 patients (10 per group) were analyzed. Hybrid RS improved total revenue ($3515.15 vs. $3229.33) by reducing the total cost ($3652.45 vs. $4061.33), mainly through lower material costs for staplers and ultrasonic devices. The operative time was shorter, and the safety and pathological outcomes were comparable.</p> Conclusions <p>Hybrid RS enhances cost efficiency by substituting expensive devices with affordable alternatives, supporting wider adoption of robotic surgery. Further validation using larger studies is necessary.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comprehensive revenue comparison of pure robotic vs. hybrid robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid cancer

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月15日

查看全文
  • Toshiyuki Fukuda,
  • Masakatsu Numata,
  • Tatsunosuke Harada,
  • Shota Izukawa,
  • Yosuke Atsumi,
  • Keisuke Kazama,
  • Yusuke Suwa,
  • Syo Sato,
  • Takafumi Kumamoto,
  • Tsutomu Sato,
  • Aya Saito

摘要

Purpose

Robotic surgery (RS) in colorectal procedures is growing but remains costly. This study evaluated the cost-saving potential of hybrid robotic surgery (hybrid RS), which integrates laparoscopic devices, compared to conventional RS (pure RS).

Methods

This single-center retrospective study (2022–2024) compared pure RS and hybrid RS for sigmoid and rectosigmoid cancers. Propensity score matching minimizes bias. Total revenue is calculated as the total fee minus the total cost.

Results

After matching, 20 patients (10 per group) were analyzed. Hybrid RS improved total revenue ($3515.15 vs. $3229.33) by reducing the total cost ($3652.45 vs. $4061.33), mainly through lower material costs for staplers and ultrasonic devices. The operative time was shorter, and the safety and pathological outcomes were comparable.

Conclusions

Hybrid RS enhances cost efficiency by substituting expensive devices with affordable alternatives, supporting wider adoption of robotic surgery. Further validation using larger studies is necessary.