Literature DB >> 15201792

Making ends meet: a cost comparison of laparoscopic and open radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Richard E Link1, Li-Ming Su, Sam B Bhayani, Christian P Pavlovich.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared the perioperative costs of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) at a metropolitan hospital by developing a detailed computer model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our predictive model incorporates institutional cost centers for operative time, operating room consumables, professional fees, hospital room and board, oral analgesics, autologous blood banking, blood transfusion and cystography. Versions with and without pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) were evaluated using 1 and 2-way sensitivity analyses. Operative times, lengths of stay and transfusion rates were derived from published series. We also reviewed individual hospital charges for 172 consecutive prostatectomy cases for comparison and validation of model predictions.
RESULTS: The model predicted cost premiums for LRP of 14.4% (without PLND) and 17.5% (with PLND). The actual hospital charge premium for LRP and PLND was 18.4%, which differed from the predicted cost premium by less than 1%. The most significant cost centers in order of importance were operative time, length of stay and consumables. To achieve cost equivalence with RRP, operative times would need to average 159 minutes (LRP and PLND) and 174 minutes (LRP alone) holding other factors constant. Cost equivalence could not be achieved by shortening hospital stay alone unless LRP were performed as an outpatient procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Our model predicts the perioperative costs of LRP to be greater than RRP by a factor of less than 1.2x. If disposable instruments and trocars are eliminated, and patients undergoing LRP and PLND are discharged on postoperative day 2, cost equivalence with RRP and PLND can be achieved with operative times of 3.4 hours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15201792     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000128773.99707.5b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

Review 1.  Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: techniques, outcomes, and cost.

Authors:  Matthew T Gettman; Michael L Blute
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2005

Review 3.  Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The case for open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nadeem Shaida; Peter R Malone
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  New techniques and management options for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Joycelyn L Speight; Mack Roach
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

5.  [Radical prostatectomy for men aged <56 years with prostate cancer. Cost of illness analysis].

Authors:  K Herkommer; T A Fuchs; R E Hautmann; B G Volkmer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  A cost-analysis comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy: the McMaster Institute of Urology experience.

Authors:  Tariq F Al-Shaiji; Niki Kanaroglou; Achilleas Thom; Connie Prowse; Vikram Comondore; William Orovan; Kevin Piercey; Paul Whelan; Leo Winter; Edward D Matsumoto
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.862

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.