Cost analysis of new robotic competitors: a comparison of direct costs for initial hospital stay between Da Vinci and Hugo RAS for radical prostatectomy.

Robotic surgery with Da Vinci has revolutionized the treatment of several diseases, including prostate cancer; nevertheless, costs remain the major drawback. Recently, new robotic platforms entered the market aiming to reduce costs and improve the access to robotic surgery. The aim of the study is to compare direct cost for initial hospital stay of radical prostatectomy performed with two different robotic systems, the Da Vinci and the new Hugo RAS system. This is a projection study that applies cost of robotic surgery, derived from a local tender, to the clinical course of robotic radical prostatectomy (RALP) performed with Da Vinci and Hugo RAS. The study was performed in a public referral center for robotic surgery equipped with both systems. The cost of robotic surgery from a local tender were considered and included rent, annual maintenance, and a per-procedure fee covering the setup of four robotic instruments. Those costs were applied to patients who underwent RALP with both systems since November 2022. The primary endpoint is to evaluate direct costs of initial hospital stay for Da Vinci and Hugo RAS, by considering equipment costs (as derived from the tender), and costs of theater and of hospitalization. The direct per-procedure cost is €2,246.31 for a Da Vinci procedure and €1995 for a Hugo RALP. In the local setting, Hugo RAS provides 11% of cost saving for RALP. By applying this per-procedure cost to our clinical data, the expenditure for the entire index hospitalization is € 6.7755,1 for Da Vinci and € 6.637,15 for Hugo RALP. The new Hugo RAS system is willing to reduce direct expenditures of robotic surgery for RALP; furthermore, it provides similar peri-operative outcomes compared to the Da Vinci. However, other drivers of costs should be taken into account, such as the duration of OR use-that is more than just console time and may depend on the facility's background and organization. Further variations in direct costs of robotic systems are related to caseload, local agreements and negotiations. Thus, cost comparison of new robotic platform still remains an ongoing issue.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine association allows shorter induction time for pediatric sedation compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam.

BACKGROUND: Non-painful diagnostic procedures require an inactive state for a prolonged time, so that sedation is often needed in younger children to perform the procedures. Our standard of care in this setting consists of the association between oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 mcg/kg). One of the limits of this approach is that the onset of action is quite delayed (up to 55 min) and poorly predictable. We chose to compare this association with intranasal-ketamine and intranasal-dexmedetomidine. METHODS: This is a "pre-post" study. The study population included the first forty children receiving sedation with the "new" combination intranasal ketamine (3 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 mcg/kg) compared to a historical cohort including the last forty children receiving sedation with our standard of care combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine (4mcg/kg) and oral midazolam (0,5 mg/kg). RESULTS: The association intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine allowed for a significantly shorter sedation induction time than the combination intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam (13,5 min versus 35 min). Both group's cumulative data showed a correlation between age and sedation effectiveness, with younger children presenting a higher success rate and shorter induction time (p 0,001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the ketamine and dexmedetomidine intranasal association may have a shorter onset of action when compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam.