A multicentre cost-effectiveness and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) comparison study between laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy
BAUS ePoster online library. Good D. 11/10/20; 304211; P10-3 Disclosure(s): Prostate Scotland / The Urology Foundation Robotic Urology
Mr. Daniel Good
Mr. Daniel Good
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.

You may also access this content "anytime, anywhere" with the Free MULTILEARNING App for iOS and Android
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
A multicentre cost-effectiveness and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) comparison study between laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy

Good D1, Stoddart A4, Challacome B3, Cahill D2, McNeill A1
1Department of Urology, Western General Hospital, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK, 3Guys and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, UK, 4Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, UK

Objective: To assess if there were any statistically and clinically significant differences in cost effectiveness and PROM data between LRP and RARP between 3 high volume UK units.

Patients and Methods:
Baseline, 6 weeks, 3 and 12 month EPIC-26 (UI, UO, Bowel, Sexual, Hormonal), Decision regret score (DRS) and EQ5D5L questionnaires were used. Capital, maintenance costs as well as in hospital and post hospital health care resource utilisation within 1 year of surgery were used for health economic analyses.

Results:
439 patients (201 in LRP and 238 in RARP groups) were included. The groups were similar in age, BMI and PSA.
There was a statistically significantly lower early (
Conclusion:
The main benefits of RARP appear mainly related to nerve sparing. New robotic systems will need to reduce their costs and demonstrate nerve sparing ability to become cost effective.
A multicentre cost-effectiveness and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) comparison study between laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy

Good D1, Stoddart A4, Challacome B3, Cahill D2, McNeill A1
1Department of Urology, Western General Hospital, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK, 3Guys and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, UK, 4Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, UK

Objective: To assess if there were any statistically and clinically significant differences in cost effectiveness and PROM data between LRP and RARP between 3 high volume UK units.

Patients and Methods:
Baseline, 6 weeks, 3 and 12 month EPIC-26 (UI, UO, Bowel, Sexual, Hormonal), Decision regret score (DRS) and EQ5D5L questionnaires were used. Capital, maintenance costs as well as in hospital and post hospital health care resource utilisation within 1 year of surgery were used for health economic analyses.

Results:
439 patients (201 in LRP and 238 in RARP groups) were included. The groups were similar in age, BMI and PSA.
There was a statistically significantly lower early (
Conclusion:
The main benefits of RARP appear mainly related to nerve sparing. New robotic systems will need to reduce their costs and demonstrate nerve sparing ability to become cost effective.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies