TABLE 42Sensitivity analysis changing positive margin rate: OR for positive margins for robotic vs laparoscopic surgery was set at the lower CrI limit (OR =0.506)

Surgical capacityInterventionMean cost (£)Mean QALYsICER (£)Probability cost-effective at different threshold values for WTP per QALY
£0£10,000£20,000£30,000£50,000
200Robotic90956.5711,7310.000.270.920.990.99
Laparoscopic76286.441.000.730.080.010.01
150Robotic98536.5717,7980.000.000.650.920.99
Laparoscopic76286.441.001.000.350.080.01
100Robotic11,0976.5727,7430.000.000.090.600.94
Laparoscopic76286.441.001.000.910.400.06
50Robotic15,9146.5766,2590.000.000.000.000.12
Laparoscopic76286.441.0001.001.001.000.88
200aRobotic82236.5747600.000.970.990.991.00
Laparoscopic76286.441.000.030.010.010.00

ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; WTP, willingness to pay.

a

Based on an equipment cost per procedure of £2595.92, derived from the use of a da Vinci S EZ (three-arm) system.

From: 6, Results of the health economic evaluation

Cover of Systematic Review and Economic Modelling of the Relative Clinical Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Surgery and Robotic Surgery for Removal of the Prostate in Men with Localised Prostate Cancer
Systematic Review and Economic Modelling of the Relative Clinical Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Surgery and Robotic Surgery for Removal of the Prostate in Men with Localised Prostate Cancer.
Health Technology Assessment, No. 16.41.
Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al.
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2012 Nov.
© 2012, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.