Yair Lotan1, Jeffrey A Cadeddu. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9110, USA. Yair.Lotan@utsouthwestern.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare costs associated with open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic PN (LPN) and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRF) in consecutive patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The charts and costs were reviewed for all 46 patients undergoing nephron-sparing PN at our institution from March 2003 to March 2004. Clinical characteristics, operative techniques, radiographic and pathological information were recorded. Detailed cost information for room and board, laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, operating room, surgical supplies, anaesthesia, recovery room, electrocardiography and respiratory services were obtained from our institution. RESULTS: The hospital stay was significantly shorter for PRF (0.5 days) than either LPN (1.86) and OPN (4.94). PRF was statistically less costly than LPN and OPN, with mean (sd) costs of (US dollars) 4454 (938), 7013 (934) and 7767 (1605). There was no significant difference in cost between LPN and OPN. Surgical supply costs were significantly higher for LPN and PRF than OPN. LPN had less than a third of the room and board costs of OPN (P < 0.001). Decreases in room and board were also associated with lower pharmacy and laboratory costs. CONCLUSIONS: PRF is significantly less costly than LPN and OPN; LPN is cost-equivalent to OPN as the shorter stay compensates for significantly higher surgical supply costs. In those patients with tumours of appropriate size and location, minimally invasive approaches can decrease the morbidity, with cost benefits.
OBJECTIVE: To compare costs associated with open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic PN (LPN) and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRF) in consecutive patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The charts and costs were reviewed for all 46 patients undergoing nephron-sparing PN at our institution from March 2003 to March 2004. Clinical characteristics, operative techniques, radiographic and pathological information were recorded. Detailed cost information for room and board, laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, operating room, surgical supplies, anaesthesia, recovery room, electrocardiography and respiratory services were obtained from our institution. RESULTS: The hospital stay was significantly shorter for PRF (0.5 days) than either LPN (1.86) and OPN (4.94). PRF was statistically less costly than LPN and OPN, with mean (sd) costs of (US dollars) 4454 (938), 7013 (934) and 7767 (1605). There was no significant difference in cost between LPN and OPN. Surgical supply costs were significantly higher for LPN and PRF than OPN. LPN had less than a third of the room and board costs of OPN (P < 0.001). Decreases in room and board were also associated with lower pharmacy and laboratory costs. CONCLUSIONS: PRF is significantly less costly than LPN and OPN; LPN is cost-equivalent to OPN as the shorter stay compensates for significantly higher surgical supply costs. In those patients with tumours of appropriate size and location, minimally invasive approaches can decrease the morbidity, with cost benefits.
Authors: R F Grasso; G Luppi; E Faiella; F Giurazza; R Del Vescovo; R L Cazzato; B Beomonte Zobel Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.469