Panel shows how health technology assessments can evaluate robotic surgery systems

Care team member handles da Vinci system arm

When countries or health systems consider new technology that may help patients, the health technology assessment (HTA) process can provide evidence-based information to help formulate policies that are patient-focused and cost effective.

An HTA is a standard tool when examining new therapeutic or pharmaceutical products, but it can present challenges when evaluating the more complex ecosystem of software and hardware that comprise Intuitive’s da Vinci surgical system.

Recently, Intuitive and global health care consultancy Alira Health convened 14 physicians, economists and policymakers to study 98 HTAs of robotic-assisted systems that had been completed from 25 countries. Its goal was to develop guidance on how HTAs can appropriately assess robotic-assisted surgical systems, such as Intuitive’s da Vinci system. The panel reached clear consensus for healthcare stakeholders considering robotic-assisted surgical systems:

Real-world evidence should be considered for inclusion in health technology assessments.

Many HTAs limit their evidence review to randomized control trial (RCT) studies, which are often small and may have limited generalizability when evaluating surgical interventions. Basing HTA decision on RCTs ignores a fast-growing volume of real-world clinical evidence that can inform policy decisions.

OR technician displays a da Vinci instrument for colleague

HTAs should consider patient-reported outcomes and benefits to the surgeon

When HTAs focus only on hard clinical outcomes, they may overlook such things as the ergonomic benefits for surgeons or certain aspects of patient benefits that could inform health policy decisions.

HTAs should consider clinician competency and the surgeon learning curve on new technology such as RAS

Evaluating clinical studies in which the surgeons are at different parts in their learning curve or are at different skill levels may bias the interpretation of results.

The way HTAs account for costs should evolve to reflect the reality of today’s surgical landscape.

Some HTAs have allocated the entire capital cost of a robotic-assisted surgical system to the procedure volumes of a single procedure. That approach may skew results; a different way would be to allocate costs across all the procedures that the robotic system addresses. This analysis may more completely reflect how a hospital or health system uses RAS today to cover a variety of patient procedures.

Training resident surgeon inspects screen on vision cart

HTAs should evaluate the whole robotic ecosystem to account for additional benefits to reach a more accurate assessment.

Often HTAs separate analysis of costs and clinical benefit, which can miss the value of RAS to both lower overall costs and help produce improved patient outcomes depending on procedure types. Evaluating the system holistically could more accurately capture all potential benefits.

“This process revealed a better way for HTAs to address robotic-assisted systems going forward,” said Intuitive’s Scott Tackett, vice president of its Global Access Value Economics unit. “HTAs are extremely valuable tools that could become even more potent when modified to consider the unique value of robotic-assisted surgical systems, and we hope our conclusions inform stakeholders around the world.”