Researchers from Stanford University in the US looked at nearly 24,000 patients with kidney cancer.
The analysis showed that the use of robot-assisted surgery to remove kidneys was not always more cost-effective than using traditional laparascopic methods.
However, the two approaches have comparable patient outcomes and lengths of hospital stay, researchers said.
Laparoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure in which surgical operations are done through small incisions. The removal of the entire kidney is called radical nephrectomy.
More From This Section
Surgical robots are helpful because they offer more dexterity than traditional laparoscopic instrumentation and use a three-dimensional, high-resolution camera to visualise and magnify the operating field.
While some procedures require a high degree of delicate manoeuvring and extensive internal suturing that render the robot's assistance invaluable, researchers hypothesised that less technically challenging surgeries may not benefit as significantly from a robot's help.
They analysed data from 416 hospitals from 2003 to 2015. Researchers found that among nearly 24,000 patients, almost 19,000 underwent a traditional laparoscopic procedure and about 5,000 underwent a robotic-assisted procedure.
In contrast, about 28.5 per cent of the patients whose surgeon used the conventional laparoscopic procedure were in the operating room for more than four hours.
On average, the total hospital cost for the robot- assisted procedure exceeded that of the traditional laparoscopic procedures by about USD 2,700 per patient.
The researchers speculated that the increased cost may be due to longer times spent in the operating room and the disposable instruments upon which surgical robots rely.
It is possible that the operating time will decrease and that the cost differences between the two procedures will narrow over time.
"But for now, the study suggests that robot-assisted surgery is not always the right choice," researchers said.