Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
Percutaneous cryoablation versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for small renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective
Mayu Uka1,2, Toshihiro Iguchi3,4, Kensuke Bekku5
1Department of Radiology, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan. mayuuka3@gmail.com.
Background:
No direct cost comparison has been conducted between percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for clinical T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Japan. This study aimed to compare their costs.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed data from 212 PCAs (including 155 with transcatheter arterial embolization) and 119 RAPN cases performed between December 2017 and May 2022.
Results:
PCA patients were older with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and history of previous RCC treatment, cardiovascular disease, and antithrombotic drug use than RAPN patients. PCA was associated with a significantly shorter procedure time and hospitalization duration with fewer major complications than those associated with RAPN. While PCA incurred a slightly lower total cost (1,123,000 vs. 1,155,000 yen), it had a significantly higher procedural cost (739,000 vs. 693,000 yen) and markedly worse total (- 93,000 vs. 249,000 yen) and procedural income-expenditure balance (- 189,000 vs. 231,000 yen) than those of RAPN. After statistical adjustment, PCA demonstrated significantly higher total (difference: 114,000 yen) and procedural costs (difference: 72,000 yen), alongside significantly worse total (difference: - 358,000 yen) and procedural income-expenditure balances (difference: - 439,000 yen). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was more favorable for PCA than for RAPN.
Conclusion:
For high- risk patients, PCA demonstrated a safer option with shorter hospitalization duration than those of RAPN. Although PCA was more cost-effective, its higher procedural cost and unfavorable income-expenditure balance require careful evaluation, especially for large tumors that require three or more needles.
