Robotic vs Laparoscopic Study. Spanish Cost Effective Snapshot Study
NCT ID: NCT04861974
Last Updated: 2021-04-27
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
180 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2021-06-15
2022-06-15
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Cost Evaluation of Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair
NCT06232148
Outcomes of Open Versus Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Posterior Component Separation in Complex Abdominal Wall Repair
NCT05195957
Laparoscopic Versus Robot-assisted Ventral Hernia Repair: a Single Institution Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT03133715
Pain and Quality of Life After Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Repair (RECOVER)
NCT04487522
Economic Assessment of STarting Endoscopic Robotic Groin Hernia Repair
NCT04431271
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
From previous report Robotic surgery entails higher costs. However, cost solely is not enough to validate a new procedure. Whenever a new technology is introduced it is important to evaluate cost and improved quality of life as well, which is the Cost Effectiveness (CE) study.
The aim of our study is to evaluate in Spain the CE of laparoscopic and robotic procedure of Distal Pancreatectomy, Gastrectomy, Nissen procedure, Rectal resection and Inguinal hernia repair.
This is a prospective snapshot study during 6 months in which patients are included from several Spanish centers. Cost are defined according to the spain official cost data recorded from the RECH (https://www.rechosp.org).
Main clinical outcomes are gathered divided in intra operative and post operative data.
Quality of life (EQ 5D-5L) is recorded as well pre operatively and post operatively at 30 days and 9 days from the surgery, time in which the follow up is ended.
A cost effectiveness analysis is finally performed:
A model-based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and QALYs per patient was performed.
The Institute for Validation of Clinical Efficacy (IVEC) of the HM Hospitals group was responsible for capturing costs ascribed to each patient's treatment. The total direct hospital costs of care, with the exception of the acquisition or maintenance of the robotic device.
Materials and medicines used during surgery were standardized so that the same materials were used in all patients undergoing surgery regardless of the technique employed (Robotic or Laparoscopic). Operative costs included the cost of the operating room in relation to the operative time, and all required supplies (including all laparoscopic devices, sutures, and instruments), anaesthesia, laboratory and related blood transfusion costs when required. Hospitalization costs included costs associated with room and board, the length of hospital stay (including intensive care, medications, blood transfusion, parenteral nutrition and radiology charge) and costs for surgical visits (programmed and emergency) as well as readmission costs up to 90 days from surgery. The direct costs of the professionals involved have not been calculated as they did not vary between the two types of operation. A discount rate of 3% per year is used in the estimation of the costs and QALYs, as recommended by health economic guidelines (9) All costs are presented in Euros (exchange rate 2021).
Stochastic cost-utility analysis was undertaken, whereby the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated using overall costs of the RRR and LRR procedures and QALYs derived from patient interviews, in order to find the incremental cost per QALYs gained.
Net monetary benefits (NMBs) were calculated in order to estimate the maximum willingness to pay (WTP) of decision makers for a QALY gained. The NMB was calculated as the mean QALYs per patient multiplied by WTP threshold minus the mean cost per patient for the treatment. The decision rule is to adopt the treatment if the NMB \> 0, and the alternative with the highest NMB represents best value for money.
Sensitivity analysis A sensitivity analysis was carried out in order to propagate the uncertainty of the estimations to the results of the model. We used a multivariate and stochastic sensitivity analysis performed by 5,000 Monte Carlo simulations. The cost-effectiveness plane was used to represent all pairs of solutions of the model.
The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis are shown in the tornado diagram which depicts graphically how variations in each input affect the outcome. The 95% confidence intervals around the base case values were derived using the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles calculated from the sensitivity analysis.
The tornado diagram is stacked in order of decreasing width, indicating that variations in inputs near the top (Total Costs Robotic) have the greatest effect on the outcome, while variations in inputs near the bottom (QALYs discount rate) have relatively small effects on the outcome.
Acceptability curve The investigators also computed a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve which plots the probability that the Robotic was cost-effective relative to Laparoscopy over a reasonable range of levels of willingness-to-pay.
Although in Spain there is no specific willing to pay threshold in healthcare, according to the National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE), the investigators used a willingness-to-pay of 20,000 € and 30,000 € per QALY as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost-effective
Statistics Data have been recorded in a SPSS Statistics Version 20.0 database and are expressed as median values (interquartile range-IQR 25-75). Categorical data are presented as numbers (%). To compare the means of the quantitative variables when the variables followed a normal distribution, a variance analysis and a Student's t-test were used. For the rest of the variables, both Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed. Cost, QALYs and incremental results are presented in a 95% Confidence Interval. A p value \< .05 was considered significant. Data herein reported are for patients who reached a minimum of one year of follow up.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy
No interventions assigned to this group
Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy
No interventions assigned to this group
Robotic Gastrectomy
No interventions assigned to this group
Laparoscopic Gastrectomy
No interventions assigned to this group
Robotic Funduplication
No interventions assigned to this group
Laparoscopic Funduplication
No interventions assigned to this group
Robotic Hernioplasty
No interventions assigned to this group
Laparoscopic Hernioplasty
No interventions assigned to this group
Robotic Rectal Resection
No interventions assigned to this group
Laparoscopic Rectal Resection
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* \>18 years old
Exclusion Criteria
* Previous abdominal surgeries
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Hospital del Mar
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Benedetto Ielpo
MD, PhD
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Robocostes
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.