RESUMO RACIONAL: A pesquisa em cirurgia robótica assistida cresceu dramaticamente nas últimas duas décadas e as vantagens sobre a videolaparoscopia tradicional têm sido amplamente debatidas. Para as hérnias, o sistema robótico pode aumentar as estratégias intraoperatórias, principalmente em hérnias complexas ou hérnias incisionais. OBJETIVOS: Comparar as diferenças de custo direto entre a hernioplastia incisional robótica e a laparoscópica e determinar cada fonte de gasto que pode estar relacionada ao aumento de custos em um programa de robótica na perspectiva de uma instituição pública brasileira. MÉTODOS: Investigar as diferenças nos custos diretos dos dados gerados a partir de um protocolo de ensaio clínico (ReBEC: RBR-5s6mnrf). Pacientes com hérnia incisional foram aleatoriamente designados para serem submetidos a reparo robótico ou laparoscópico (RVIHR). Os custos foram descritos na moeda brasileira (R$). RESULTADOS: Dezenove pacientes submetidos à cirurgia robótica foram comparados com dezoito submetidos à cirurgia laparoscópica. O valor gasto com tempo de centro cirúrgico (Robótica: 2.447,91±644,79; Robótica: 1.989,67±763,00; p=0,030), gases medicinais inalados em centro cirúrgico (Robótica: 270,57±211,51; Robótica: 84,55±252,34; p=0,023), recursos humanos em centro cirúrgico (Robótica: 3.164,43±894,97; Laparoscópica: 2.120,16±663,78; p<0,001), recursos materiais (Robótica : 3.204,32±351,55; Robótica: 736,51±972,32; p<0,001) e medicamentos (Robótica: 823,40±175,47; Robótica: 288,50 ± 352,55; p<0,001) para cirurgia robótica foi maior que cirurgia laparoscópica, implicando em maior custo total para cirurgia robótica (Robótica: 14.712,24±3.520,82; Laparoscópica: 10.295,95±3.453,59; p<0,001). Não foi observada diferença significativa nos custos relacionados à permanência hospitalar, recursos humanos em UTI e enfermaria, exames diagnósticos e telas. CONCLUSÕES: O sistema robótico adiciona um custo global significativo à hernioplastia incisional laparoscópica tradicional. O custo dos dispositivos médicos e robóticos, além de tempos cirúrgicos mais prolongados, são os principais fatores que impulsionam a diferença nos custos. RACIONAL debatidas intraoperatórias incisionais OBJETIVOS MÉTODOS ReBEC (ReBEC RBR5s6mnrf. RBR5s6mnrf RBRsmnrf RBR 5s6mnrf . s mnrf RBR-5s6mnrf) RVIHR. RVIHR (RVIHR) R$. R R$ (R$) RESULTADOS Robótica 2.447,91±644,79 24479164479 2 447 91 644 79 1.989,67±763,00 19896776300 1 989 67 763 00 p=0,030, p0030 p p=0,030 , 0 030 p=0,030) 270,57±211,51 2705721151 270 57 211 51 84,55±252,34 845525234 84 55 252 34 p=0,023, p0023 p=0,023 023 p=0,023) 3.164,43±894,97 31644389497 3 164 43 894 97 Laparoscópica 2.120,16±663,78 21201666378 120 16 663 78 p<0,001, p0001 p<0,001 001 3.204,32±351,55 32043235155 204 32 351 736,51±972,32 7365197232 736 972 823,40±175,47 8234017547 823 40 175 47 28850 288 50 288,5 352,55 35255 352 14.712,24±3.520,82 1471224352082 14 712 24 520 82 10.295,95±3.453,59 1029595345359 10 295 95 453 59 p<0,001. hospitalar enfermaria telas CONCLUSÕES robóticos prolongados smnrf RBR-5s6mnrf (RVIHR (R$ 2.447,91±644,7 2447916447 44 9 64 7 1.989,67±763,0 1989677630 98 6 76 p003 p=0,03 03 270,57±211,5 270572115 27 5 21 84,55±252,3 84552523 8 25 p002 p=0,02 02 3.164,43±894,9 3164438949 4 89 2.120,16±663,7 2120166637 12 66 p000 p<0,00 3.204,32±351,5 3204323515 20 35 736,51±972,3 736519723 73 823,40±175,4 823401754 17 2885 28 288, 352,5 3525 14.712,24±3.520,8 147122435208 71 52 10.295,95±3.453,5 102959534535 29 45 (R 2.447,91±644, 244791644 1.989,67±763, 198967763 p00 p=0,0 270,57±211, 27057211 84,55±252, 8455252 3.164,43±894, 316443894 2.120,16±663, 212016663 p<0,0 3.204,32±351, 320432351 736,51±972, 73651972 823,40±175, 82340175 352, 14.712,24±3.520, 14712243520 10.295,95±3.453, 10295953453 2.447,91±644 24479164 1.989,67±763 19896776 p0 p=0, 270,57±211 2705721 84,55±252 845525 3.164,43±894 31644389 2.120,16±663 21201666 p<0, 3.204,32±351 32043235 736,51±972 7365197 823,40±175 8234017 14.712,24±3.520 1471224352 10.295,95±3.453 1029595345 2.447,91±64 2447916 1.989,67±76 1989677 p=0 270,57±21 270572 84,55±25 84552 3.164,43±89 3164438 2.120,16±66 2120166 p<0 3.204,32±35 3204323 736,51±97 736519 823,40±17 823401 14.712,24±3.52 147122435 10.295,95±3.45 102959534 2.447,91±6 244791 1.989,67±7 198967 p= 270,57±2 27057 84,55±2 8455 3.164,43±8 316443 2.120,16±6 212016 p< 3.204,32±3 320432 736,51±9 73651 823,40±1 82340 14.712,24±3.5 14712243 10.295,95±3.4 10295953 2.447,91± 24479 1.989,67± 19896 270,57± 2705 84,55± 845 3.164,43± 31644 2.120,16± 21201 3.204,32± 32043 736,51± 7365 823,40± 8234 14.712,24±3. 1471224 10.295,95±3. 1029595 2.447,91 2447 1.989,67 1989 270,57 84,55 3.164,43 3164 2.120,16 2120 3.204,32 3204 736,51 823,40 14.712,24±3 147122 10.295,95±3 102959 2.447,9 244 1.989,6 198 270,5 84,5 3.164,4 316 2.120,1 212 3.204,3 320 736,5 823,4 14.712,24± 14712 10.295,95± 10295 2.447, 1.989, 19 270, 84, 3.164, 31 2.120, 3.204, 736, 823, 14.712,24 1471 10.295,95 1029 2.447 1.989 3.164 2.120 3.204 14.712,2 147 10.295,9 102 2.44 1.98 3.16 2.12 3.20 14.712, 10.295, 2.4 1.9 3.1 2.1 3.2 14.712 10.295 2. 1. 3. 14.71 10.29 14.7 10.2 14. 10.
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery research has grown dramatically in the past two decades and the advantages over traditional videolaparoscopy have been extensively debated. For hernias, the robotic system can increase intraoperative strategies, especially in complex hernias or incisional hernias. AIMS: This study aimed to compare the direct cost differences between robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair and determine each source of expenditure that may be related to the increased costs in a robotic program from the perspective of a Brazilian public institution. METHODS: This study investigated the differences in direct costs from the data generated from a trial protocol (ReBEC: RBR-5s6mnrf). Patients with incisional hernia were randomly assigned to receive laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair (LVIHR) or robotic ventral incisional hernia repair (RVIHR). The direct medical costs of hernia treatment were described in the Brazilian currency (R$). RESULTS: A total of 19 patients submitted to LVIHR were compared with 18 submitted to RVIHR. The amount spent on operation room time (RVIHR: 2,447.91±644.79; LVIHR: 1,989.67±763.00; p=0.030), inhaled medical gases in operating room (RVIHR: 270.57±211.51; LVIHR: 84.55±252.34; p=0.023), human resources in operating room (RVIHR: 3,164.43±894.97; LVIHR: 2,120.16±663.78; p<0.001), material resources (RVIHR: 3,204.32±351.55; LVIHR: 736.51±972.32; p<0.001), and medications (RVIHR: 823.40±175.47; LVIHR: 288.50±352.55; p<0.001) for RVIHR was higher than that for LVIHR, implying a higher total cost to RVIHR (RVIHR: 14,712.24±3,520.82; LVIHR: 10,295.95±3,453.59; p<0.001). No significant difference was noted in costs related to the hospital stay, human resources in intensive care unit and ward, diagnostic tests, and meshes. CONCLUSION: Robotic system adds a significant overall cost to traditional laparoscopic hernia repair. The cost of the medical and robotic devices and longer operative times are the main factors driving the difference in costs. BACKGROUND Roboticassisted assisted debated strategies AIMS institution METHODS ReBEC (ReBEC RBR5s6mnrf. RBR5s6mnrf RBRsmnrf RBR 5s6mnrf . s mnrf RBR-5s6mnrf) (LVIHR (RVIHR) R$. R R$ (R$) RESULTS 1 (RVIHR 2,447.91±644.79 24479164479 2 447 91 644 79 1,989.67±763.00 19896776300 989 67 763 00 p=0.030, p0030 p p=0.030 , 0 030 p=0.030) 270.57±211.51 2705721151 270 57 211 51 84.55±252.34 845525234 84 55 252 34 p=0.023, p0023 p=0.023 023 p=0.023) 3,164.43±894.97 31644389497 3 164 43 894 97 2,120.16±663.78 21201666378 120 16 663 78 p<0.001, p0001 p<0.001 001 3,204.32±351.55 32043235155 204 32 351 736.51±972.32 7365197232 736 972 823.40±175.47 8234017547 823 40 175 47 288.50±352.55 2885035255 288 50 352 14,712.24±3,520.82 1471224352082 14 712 24 520 82 10,295.95±3,453.59 1029595345359 10 295 95 453 59 p<0.001. stay ward tests meshes CONCLUSION smnrf RBR-5s6mnrf (R$ 2,447.91±644.7 2447916447 44 9 64 7 1,989.67±763.0 1989677630 98 6 76 p003 p=0.03 03 270.57±211.5 270572115 27 5 21 84.55±252.3 84552523 8 25 p002 p=0.02 02 3,164.43±894.9 3164438949 4 89 2,120.16±663.7 2120166637 12 66 p000 p<0.00 3,204.32±351.5 3204323515 20 35 736.51±972.3 736519723 73 823.40±175.4 823401754 17 288.50±352.5 288503525 28 14,712.24±3,520.8 147122435208 71 52 10,295.95±3,453.5 102959534535 29 45 (R 2,447.91±644. 244791644 1,989.67±763. 198967763 p00 p=0.0 270.57±211. 27057211 84.55±252. 8455252 3,164.43±894. 316443894 2,120.16±663. 212016663 p<0.0 3,204.32±351. 320432351 736.51±972. 73651972 823.40±175. 82340175 288.50±352. 28850352 14,712.24±3,520. 14712243520 10,295.95±3,453. 10295953453 2,447.91±644 24479164 1,989.67±763 19896776 p0 p=0. 270.57±211 2705721 84.55±252 845525 3,164.43±894 31644389 2,120.16±663 21201666 p<0. 3,204.32±351 32043235 736.51±972 7365197 823.40±175 8234017 288.50±352 2885035 14,712.24±3,520 1471224352 10,295.95±3,453 1029595345 2,447.91±64 2447916 1,989.67±76 1989677 p=0 270.57±21 270572 84.55±25 84552 3,164.43±89 3164438 2,120.16±66 2120166 p<0 3,204.32±35 3204323 736.51±97 736519 823.40±17 823401 288.50±35 288503 14,712.24±3,52 147122435 10,295.95±3,45 102959534 2,447.91±6 244791 1,989.67±7 198967 p= 270.57±2 27057 84.55±2 8455 3,164.43±8 316443 2,120.16±6 212016 p< 3,204.32±3 320432 736.51±9 73651 823.40±1 82340 288.50±3 28850 14,712.24±3,5 14712243 10,295.95±3,4 10295953 2,447.91± 24479 1,989.67± 19896 270.57± 2705 84.55± 845 3,164.43± 31644 2,120.16± 21201 3,204.32± 32043 736.51± 7365 823.40± 8234 288.50± 2885 14,712.24±3, 1471224 10,295.95±3, 1029595 2,447.91 2447 1,989.67 1989 270.57 84.55 3,164.43 3164 2,120.16 2120 3,204.32 3204 736.51 823.40 288.50 14,712.24±3 147122 10,295.95±3 102959 2,447.9 244 1,989.6 198 270.5 84.5 3,164.4 316 2,120.1 212 3,204.3 320 736.5 823.4 288.5 14,712.24± 14712 10,295.95± 10295 2,447. 1,989. 270. 84. 3,164. 31 2,120. 3,204. 736. 823. 288. 14,712.24 1471 10,295.95 1029 2,447 1,989 3,164 2,120 3,204 14,712.2 147 10,295.9 102 2,44 1,98 3,16 2,12 3,20 14,712. 10,295. 2,4 1,9 3,1 2,1 3,2 14,712 10,295 2, 1, 3, 14,71 10,29 14,7 10,2 14, 10,