Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery vs open surgery in the context of partial nephrectomy for small kidney tumors.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery compared to open surgery in the context of partial nephrectomy for small kidney tumor management. This is a retrospective study using data from 395 patients operated on by either robot-assisted surgery (RAPN) or by open partial nephrectomy (OPN); one hospital performed RAPN exclusively and the second hospital, OPN exclusively. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) by considering the costs of the initial hospital stay and the cost of complications. Clinical outcome was defined by the avoidance of major complications during the 12 months postoperatively. Major complications were absent in 82% of patients in the OPN group and 93% of patients in the RAPN group, with 11% in favor of robotic assistance (p < 0.001). The average cost per patient, including the costs of complications, were, respectively, 9637 € and 8305 € for the OPN and RAPN groups. Robotic assistance was associated with a 1332 € lower cost (p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is estimated at - 12,039 €. From the perspective of the public payer, robotic assistance was associated with a lower rate of postoperative complications and a lower average cost per patient. Robotic-assisted surgery was an efficient alternative to open surgery in partial nephrectomy. Trial registration number: NCT05089006 (October 22, 2021).

Clinical and oncological outcomes of open partial nephrectomy versus robot assisted partial nephrectomy over 15 years.

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard surgical treatment for localized kidney cancer. The objective of our study was to compare clinical and perioperative outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). We retrospectively collected all patients who underwent PN for kidney cancer between 2007 and 2019 at two French academic urology departments. Clinical and perioperative outcomes and complications were compared between the OPN group and the RAPN group. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared using the log-rank test. We included 405 patients. The maximum follow-up time was 13.6 years in the OPN group and 7.1 years in the RAPN group. The OPN group was associated with more blood loss and longer hospital stay (respectively, 287 ml vs. 62.1 ml; p < 0.001 and 8.54 days vs. 4.96 days; p < 0.001). Ischemia time was shorter in the OPN group (11.4 min vs. 16.9 min; p < 0.001). The rate of complications during hospitalization and after discharge from hospital was higher in the OPN group (respectively, n = 51 vs. 30; p = 0.031 and n = 31 vs. 14; p < 0.001). RFS and OS were similar in both groups. In our study, RAPN has better perioperative outcomes with shorter hospital stay and less blood loss but also fewer early and late complications. However, we did not find any difference in terms of RFS and OS.