Purpose The use of robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair (rVHR) has expanded rapidly, but its economic viability remains debated. This study aimed to provide a transparent cost analysis of rVHR compared with open ventral hernia repair (oVHR), and to identify patient subgroups where rVHR may represent a cost-effective alternative. Methods Patients with midline ventral hernias were randomized to rVHR or oVHR. A detailed bottom-up costing approach was applied, including preoperative, intraoperative, hospitalization, and post-hospitalization costs, as well as capital and maintenance costs of the robotic platform. Group-specific mean costs were estimated using log-linear regression models. Cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness analyses were performed, and an interaction model was used to explore cost differences in relation to hernia defect size. Results Fifty-six patients were included (29 rVHR, 27 oVHR). Mean total hospital costs were significantly higher for rVHR (€3,539) compared with oVHR (€1,696; cost ratio 2.09, p <0.001). Instrumentation and consumables accounted for the largest share of rVHR costs, while hospitalization represented the largest component in oVHR. Modeling suggested a potential crossover point at a defect size of 56 cm², beyond which rVHR could become relatively more cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that robotic-assisted surgery required an additional €1,149 to reduce hospital stay by one day. Conclusion Robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair is associated with substantially higher costs than open repair in our setting. However, rVHR may represent a more cost-effective strategy for larger or more complex hernias, supporting selective use based on patient characteristics and institutional resources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nielsen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: