Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND: Although several studies compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, most of them reflect the outcomes of the utilisation of older generation robotic platforms. The aim of this study is to compare the financial and clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy within a public healthcare system, utilising a multi-quadrant platform. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy between January 2017 and June 2020 in a public quaternary centre were included. Demographic characteristics, baseline clinical, tumour and operative variables, perioperative, histopathological outcomes and costs were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. Simple linear regression and generalised linear model analyses with gamma distribution and log-link function were used to determine the impact of the surgical approach on overall costs. RESULTS: During the study period, 113 patients underwent minimally invasive proctectomy. Of these, 81 (71.7%) underwent a robotic proctectomy. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate (2.5% versus 21.8%;P = 0.002) at the expense of longer operating times (284 ± 83.4 versus 243 ± 89.8 min;P = 0.025). Regarding financial outcomes, robotic surgery was associated with increased theatre costs (A$23,019 ± 8235 versus A$15,525 ± 6382; P < 0.001) and overall costs (A$34,350 ± 14,770 versus A$26,083 ± 12,647; P = 0.003). Hospitalisation costs were similar between both approaches. An ASA ≥ 3, non-metastatic disease, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, non-restorative resection, extended resection, and a robotic approach were identified as drivers of overall costs in the univariate analysis. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, a robotic approach was not identified as an independent driver of overall costs during the inpatient episode (P = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Robotic proctectomy was associated with increased theatre costs but not with increased overall inpatient costs within a public healthcare setting. Conversion was less common for robotic proctectomy at the expense of increased operating time. Larger studies will be needed to confirm these findings and examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic proctectomy to further justify its penetration in the public healthcare system. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-023-04446-1.