Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share?

Nature Reviews Urology volume 12, pages 55–60 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Surgical robotic use has grown exponentially in spite of limited or uncertain benefits and large costs. In certain situations, adoption of robotic technology provides value to patients and society. In other cases, however, the robot provides little or no increase in surgical quality, with increased expense, and, therefore, does not add value to health care. The surgical robot is expensive to purchase, maintain and operate, and can contribute to increased consumerism in relation to surgical procedures, and increased reliance on the technology, thus driving future increases in health-care expenditure. Given the current need for budget constraints, the cost-effectiveness of specific procedures must be evaluated. The surgical robot should be used when cost-effective, but traditional open and laparoscopic techniques also need to be continually fostered.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barbash, G. I. & Glied, S. A. New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 701–704 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gandaglia, G. et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 1419–1426 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Parsons, J. K., Messer, K., Palazzi, K., Stroup, S. P. & Chang, D. Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg. 149, 845–851 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Close, A. et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur. Urol. 64, 361–369 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nguyen, P. L. et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 1517–1524 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Malcolm, J. B. et al. Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 183, 1822–1828 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Badani, K. K., Kaul, S. & Menon, M. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy. Cancer 110, 1951–1958 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Patel, V. R., Tully, A. S., Holmes, R. & Lindsay, J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J. Urol. 174, 269–272 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schroeck, F. R. et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 54, 785–793 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burgess, S. V., Atug, F., Castle, E. P., Davis, R. & Thomas, R. Cost analysis of radical retropubic, perineal, and robotic prostatectomy. J. Endourol. 20, 827–830 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jacobs, B. L. et al. Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer. JAMA 309, 2587–2595 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Porter, M. E. A strategy for health care reform—toward a value-based system. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 109–112 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bolenz, C. et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 57, 453–458 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ahmed, K. et al. Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery—a systematic review. BJU Int. 110, 1544–1556 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yu, H. Y. et al. Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 187, 1632–1637 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hyams, E. S. et al. Impact of robotic technique and surgical volume on the cost of radical prostatectomy. J. Endourol. 27, 298–303 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Alemozaffar, M. et al. Comparing costs of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J. Endourol. 27, 560–565 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smith, A. et al. Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J. Urol. 183, 505–509 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Patel, H. D. et al. Trends in renal surgery: robotic technology is associated with increased use of partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 189, 1229–1235 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Altekruse, S. F. et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2007, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program [online], (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Alkhateeb, S. & Lawrentschuk, N. Consumerism and its impact on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 108, 1874–1878 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  22. United States General Accounting Office. FDA oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising has limitations. Report to congressional requesters GAO-03-177. General Accounting Office [online], (2002).

  23. Scardino, P. T. Intoxicated by technology: are we keeping our eyes on the prize? Nat. Clin. Pract. Urol. 4, 231 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eastham, J. A. Robotic-assisted prostatectomy: is there truth in advertising? Eur. Urol. 54, 720–722 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wirth, M. P. & Hakenberg, O. W. Surgery and marketing: comparing different methods of radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 55, 1031–1033 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mirkin, J. N. et al. Direct-to-consumer internet promotion of robotic prostatectomy exhibits varying quality of information. Health Aff. (Millwood) 31, 760–769 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Miller, D. C., Hollingsworth, J. M., Hafez, K. S., Daignault, S. & Hollenbeck, B. K. Partial nephrectomy for small renal masses: an emerging quality of care concern? J. Urol. 175, 853–857 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hollenbeck, B. K., Taub, D. A., Miller, D. C., Dunn, R. L. & Wei, J. T. National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a case of underutilization? Urology 67, 254–259 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  29. McKiernan, J., Simmons, R., Katz, J. & Russo, P. Natural history of chronic renal insufficiency after partial and radical nephrectomy. Urology 59, 816–820 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tan, H. J. et al. Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer. JAMA 307, 1629–1635 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shinohara, N. et al. Impact of nephron-sparing surgery on quality of life in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 39, 114–119 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rabbani, F., Herr, H. W., Almahmeed, T. & Russo, P. Temporal change in risk of metachronous contralateral renal cell carcinoma: influence of tumor characteristics and demographic factors. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 2370–2375 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Clark, P. E. et al. Quality of life and psychological adaptation after surgical treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of the amount of remaining renal tissue. Urology 57, 252–256 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Miller, D. C. et al. Diffusion of surgical innovation among patients with kidney cancer. Cancer 112, 1708–1717 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ficarra, V. et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 55, 1037–1063 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Berryhill, R. Jr et al. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 72, 15–23 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lowrance, W. T. et al. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J. Urol. 183, 1366–1372 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yu, H. Y., Hevelone, N. D., Lipsitz, S. R., Kowalczyk, K. J. & Hu, J. C. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J. Urol. 187, 1392–1398 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Anderson, J. E., Chang, D. C., Parsons, J. K. & Talamini, M. A. The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 215, 107–114 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mirheydar, H. S. & Parsons, J. K. Diffusion of robotics into clinical practice in the United States: process, patient safety, learning curves, and the public health. World J. Urol. 31, 455–461 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hu, J. C. et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302, 1557–1564 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Novara, G. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 62, 382–404 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Picozzi, S. C., Ricci, C. & Carmignani, L. Re: Giacomo Novara, Vincenzo Ficarra, Simone Mocellin, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:382–404. Eur. Urol. 63, e27–e28 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Williams, S. B. et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s). Urology 76, 1097–1101 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Diaz, M. et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. http:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.025.

  46. Tasci, A. I. et al. Oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complication rates of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: multicenter experience in Turkey including 1,499 patients. World J. Urol. http:dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1393-3.

  47. Pierorazio, P. M. et al. Trends in immediate perioperative morbidity and delay in discharge after open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP): a 20-year institutional experience. BJU Int. 112, 45–53 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Park, J. et al. Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience. World J. Urol. 32, 193–199 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Deane, L. A. et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J. Endourol. 22, 947–952 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Link, R. E. et al. Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass. J. Urol. 173, 1690–1694 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Benway, B. M. et al. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J. Urol. 182, 866–872 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gill, I. S., Kamoi, K., Aron, M. & Desai, M. M. 800 laparoscopic partial nephrectomies: a single surgeon series. J. Urol. 183, 34–41 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Huang, W. C., Elkin, E. B., Levey, A. S., Jang, T. L. & Russo, P. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors--is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes? J. Urol. 181, 55–61 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Thompson, R. H. et al. Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be associated with decreased overall survival compared with partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 179, 468–471 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Van Poppel, H. et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 59, 543–552 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lau, W. K., Blute, M. L., Weaver, A. L., Torres, V. E. & Zincke, H. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin. Proc. 75, 1236–1242 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Gill, I. S. et al. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal tumors in 200 patients. J. Urol. 170, 64–68 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Gill, I. S. et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J. Urol. 178, 41–46 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Lane, B. R., Campbell, S. C. & Gill, I. S. 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 190, 44–49 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mir, S. A., Cadeddu, J. A., Sleeper, J. P. & Lotan, Y. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J. Endourol. 25, 447–453 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Aron, M. et al. Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int. 102, 86–92 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Aboumarzouk, O. M. et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 62, 1023–1033 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Parekh, D. J., Messer, J., Fitzgerald, J., Ercole, B. & Svatek, R. Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J. Urol. 189, 474–479 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wang, G. J., Barocas, D. A., Raman, J. D. & Scherr, D. S. Robotic vs open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative outcomes and pathological measures of early oncological efficacy. BJU Int. 101, 89–93 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Nix, J. et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur. Urol. 57, 196–201 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cohen, S. A. et al. Minimally invasive cystectomy is associated with improved perioperative patient safety outcomes compared with open cystectomy in a national cohort. Urology 84, 314–319 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bochner, B. H., Sjoberg, D. D. & Laudone, V. P. A randomized trial of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 389–390 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gan, C. et al. A pilot prospective single-centre 3-arm randomised controlled trial of open, robotic and laparoscopic (coral) radical cystectomy for bladder cancer [abstract 1624]. J. Urol. 189, e667–e668 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Challacombe, B. J. et al. The role of laparoscopic and robotic cystectomy in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with special emphasis on cancer control and complications. Eur. Urol. 60, 767–775 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Simonato, A. & Ennas, M. Re: Ben J. Challacombe, Bernard H. Bochner, Prokar Dasgupta. et al. The role of laparoscopic and robotic cystectomy in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with special emphasis on cancer control and complications. Eur Urol 2011;60:767-75. Eur. Urol. 61, e29 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lowrance, W. T. et al. Costs of medical care after open or minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery: a population-based analysis. Cancer 118, 3079–3086 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kim, S. P. et al. Hospitalization costs for radical prostatectomy attributable to robotic surgery. Eur. Urol. 64, 11–16 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Lee, R. et al. The economics of robotic cystectomy: cost comparison of open versus robotic cystectomy. BJU Int. 108, 1886–1892 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Martin, A. D., Nunez, R. N. & Castle, E. P. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a complete cost analysis. Urology 77, 621–625 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Marburg 134, Baltimore, 21287, MD, USA

    Deborah R. Kaye & Jeffrey K. Mullins

  2. Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Marburg 150, Baltimore, 21287, MD, USA

    H. Ballentine Carter

  3. Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Marburg 409, Baltimore, 21287, MD, USA

    Trinity J. Bivalacqua

Authors
  1. Deborah R. Kaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey K. Mullins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Ballentine Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Trinity J. Bivalacqua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to researching data for the article, discussing content and writing the article, as well as reviewing and editing the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trinity J. Bivalacqua.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaye, D., Mullins, J., Carter, H. et al. Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share?. Nat Rev Urol 12, 55–60 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.339

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.339

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer