Economic Barriers to Robotic Surgery Adoption in the Asia Pacific Region
Author(s)
Rishabh Pandey, PhD1, Prabhakar Pandey, M. Pharm2.
1Head, Strategy, Growth and Solutions, SEREXIA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU, India, 2Head, Delivery & Operations, SEREXIA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., Bengaluru, India.
1Head, Strategy, Growth and Solutions, SEREXIA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU, India, 2Head, Delivery & Operations, SEREXIA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., Bengaluru, India.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a literature review to identify and summarize published evidence reporting cost, cost-consequence, or cost-effectiveness analyses conducted on robotic surgery (RS) in any Asia-Pacific (APAC) country and any surgical specialty.
METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were queried to filter English language studies that reported about economic outcomes of robotic surgeries relative to laparoscopic or open surgeries. Findings were qualitatively summarized to identify and explain overarching themes in the literature.
RESULTS: Most of the studies reported disaggregated cost and clinical consequences. RS generally incurred higher costs due to equipment, maintenance, and specialized consumables, resulting in increased hospital charges, particularly in benign gynecology, colorectal, and urological surgeries. However, studies from China and India reported reduced consumables and medicine/material costs in pancreatic and endometrial cancer staging surgeries, respectively. Clinically, RS offered advantages such as less blood loss, lower complication rates, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery in early cervical cancer, colorectal, and urological surgeries. Conversely, some studies found no difference in short-term outcomes or reported longer operation times and increased intensive care admissions in colorectal surgery. Three studies reported full cost-effectiveness analyses, which indicated RS can be cost-effective for specific conditions, including early-stage cervical cancer in China and various pediatric surgeries, but this depends on the procedure, healthcare system, willingness to pay threshold, and surgical volume, with higher-volume centers more likely to achieve financial viability.
CONCLUSIONS: More robust evidence on short-term cost offsets of RS is needed. Financial viability should be assessed by surgical specialty and healthcare system due to significant heterogeneity by these factors. Such evidence would be more relevant for private payers, potentially leading to improved reimbursement policies and wider assimilation of robotic surgical innovations.
METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were queried to filter English language studies that reported about economic outcomes of robotic surgeries relative to laparoscopic or open surgeries. Findings were qualitatively summarized to identify and explain overarching themes in the literature.
RESULTS: Most of the studies reported disaggregated cost and clinical consequences. RS generally incurred higher costs due to equipment, maintenance, and specialized consumables, resulting in increased hospital charges, particularly in benign gynecology, colorectal, and urological surgeries. However, studies from China and India reported reduced consumables and medicine/material costs in pancreatic and endometrial cancer staging surgeries, respectively. Clinically, RS offered advantages such as less blood loss, lower complication rates, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery in early cervical cancer, colorectal, and urological surgeries. Conversely, some studies found no difference in short-term outcomes or reported longer operation times and increased intensive care admissions in colorectal surgery. Three studies reported full cost-effectiveness analyses, which indicated RS can be cost-effective for specific conditions, including early-stage cervical cancer in China and various pediatric surgeries, but this depends on the procedure, healthcare system, willingness to pay threshold, and surgical volume, with higher-volume centers more likely to achieve financial viability.
CONCLUSIONS: More robust evidence on short-term cost offsets of RS is needed. Financial viability should be assessed by surgical specialty and healthcare system due to significant heterogeneity by these factors. Such evidence would be more relevant for private payers, potentially leading to improved reimbursement policies and wider assimilation of robotic surgical innovations.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-09, ISPOR Real-World Evidence Summit 2025, Tokyo, Japan
Value in Health Regional, Volume 49S (September 2025)
Code
RWD117
Topic Subcategory
Health & Insurance Records Systems
Disease
STA: Surgery