Robot‐assisted versus other types of radical prostatectomy: Population‐based safety and cost comparison in Japan, 2012–2013

Abstract

In 2012, Japanese national insurance started covering robot-assisted surgery. We carried out a population-based comparison between robot-assisted and three other types of radical prostatectomy to evaluate the safety of robot-assisted prostatectomy during its initial year. We abstracted data for 7202 open, 2483 laparoscopic, 1181 minimal incision endoscopic, and 2126 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies for oncological stage T3 or less from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database (April 2012-March 2013). Complication rate, transfusion rate, anesthesia time, postoperative length of stay, and cost were evaluated by pairwise one-to-one propensity-score matching and multivariable analyses with covariants of age, comorbidity, oncological stage, hospital volume, and hospital academic status. The proportion of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies dramatically increased from 8.6% to 24.1% during the first year. Compared with open, laparoscopic, and minimal incision endoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery was generally associated with a significantly lower complication rate (odds ratios, 0.25, 0.20, 0.33, respectively), autologous transfusion rate (0.04, 0.31, 0.10), homologous transfusion rate (0.16, 0.48, 0.14), lower cost excluding operation (differences, -5.1%, -1.8% [not significant], -10.8%) and shorter postoperative length of stay (-9.1%, +0.9% [not significant], -18.5%, respectively). However, robot-assisted surgery also resulted in a + 42.6% increase in anesthesia time and +52.4% increase in total cost compared with open surgery (all P < 0.05). Introduction of robotic surgery led to a dynamic change in prostate cancer surgery. Even in its initial year, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was carried out with several favorable safety aspects compared to the conventional surgeries despite its having the longest anesthesia time and the highest cost.