Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

REVIEW article

Front. Public Health

Sec. Aging and Public Health

Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1614654

This article is part of the Research TopicInteractive Robots for Healthcare and ParticipationView all articles

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Robotic Surgery in Healthcare for Older Individuals: A Systematic Review Based on Randomized Controlled Trials

Provisionally accepted
Yunkai  TangYunkai Tang1Bing  DouBing Dou2*
  • 1Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
  • 2South-Central University for Nationalities, Wuhan, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The objective of this research is to assess the economic viability of robotic interventions in the management of healthcare for the aging demographic by conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (SR/MA) of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).We conducted a SR/MA following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Studies of interest were pinpointed within various databases, encompassing PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, up until the cutoff date of November 2024. Inclusion criteria were based on the PICOS framework, focusing on older patients (≥60 years old), robotic or robot-assisted interventions, cost-related outcomes, and RCTs. The data were subjected to statistical evaluation via Stata 17 software, wherein mean discrepancies (MD) and standardized mean discrepancies (SMD) were computed, accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CI) for precision. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address heterogeneity.Results: 5 RCTs involving 666 patients were included. The findings revealed that robotic surgery incurred higher total costs compared to traditional surgical approaches (MD = 1316.38, 95% CI 10.68-2622.08; P = 0.048, I² = 92.5%). Subgroup analysis revealed that operating room costs were notable higher for robotic surgeries (MD = 1151.14, 95% CI 824.63-1477.64; P = 0.000, I² = 0.0%), while hospitalization costs were lower but not statistically significant. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains were statistically significant for robotic surgeries (MD = 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.02; P = 0.010, I² = 0.0%). Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that robotic surgery achieved costeffectiveness in some cases, with incremental costs per QALY ranging from $14,925.62 to $28,860, both below the commonly accepted threshold of $50,000.Conclusions: Robotic surgery demonstrate potential cost-effectiveness in older individuals, particularly by improving QALY and reducing long-term healthcare costs. However, the high initial investment remains a significant barrier to adoption. Future research should focus on standardizing economic evaluations, exploring specific applications of robotic therapies, and addressing long-term cost and clinical outcomes to better inform healthcare policy and practice.

Keywords: robotic surgery, Older individuals, Cost-Effectiveness, randomized controlled trials, Health Economics, systematic review and meta-analysis

Received: 19 Apr 2025; Accepted: 23 Jul 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Tang and Dou. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Bing Dou, South-Central University for Nationalities, Wuhan, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.