Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare the health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) versus conventional ‘straight stick’ laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in women undergoing hysterectomy as part of their treatment for either suspected or proven gynaecological malignancy.DesignMulticentre prospective observational cohort study.SettingPatients aged 16+ undergoing hysterectomy as part of their treatment for gynaecological malignancy at 12 National Health Service (NHS) cancer units and centres in England between August 2017 and February 2020.Participants275 patients recruited with 159 RALS, 73 CLS eligible for analysis.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life measure (EORTC). Secondary outcomes included EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) utility, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), NHS costs using pounds sterling (£) 2018–2019 prices and cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness evaluation compared EQ-5D-5L quality adjusted life years and costs between RALS and CLS.ResultsNo difference identified between RALS and CLS for EORTC, EQ-5D-5L utility and 6MWT. RALS had unadjusted mean cost difference of £556 (95% CI −£314 to £1315) versus CLS and mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) difference of 0.0024 (95% CI −0.00051 to 0.0057), non-parametric incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £231 667per QALY. For the adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis, RALS dominated CLS with a mean cost difference of −£188 (95% CI −£1321 to £827) and QALY difference of 0.0024 (95% CI −0.0008 to 0.0057).ConclusionsFindings suggest that RALS versus CLS in women undergoing hysterectomy (after adjusting for differences in morbidity) is cost-effective with lower costs and QALYs. Results are highly sensitive to the usage of robotic hardware with higher usage increasing the probability of cost-effectiveness. Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial would be of benefit to decision-makers to provide further evidence on the cost-effectiveness of RALS versus CLS but may not be practical due to surgical preferences of surgeons and the extensive roll out of RALS.