PURPOSE: Recently robotic approaches to cystectomy have been reported, and while clinical and oncological efficacy continues to be evaluated, potential financial costs have not been clearly evaluated. In this study we present a financial analysis using current cost structures and clinical outcomes for robotic and open cystectomy for bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The financial costs of robotic and open radical cystectomy were categorized into operating room and hospital components, and further divided into fixed and variable costs for each. Fixed operating room costs for open cases involved base cost as well as disposable equipment costs while robotic fixed costs included the amortized machine cost as well as equipment and maintenance. Variable operating room costs were directly related to length of surgery. Variable hospital costs were directly related to transfusion requirement and length of stay. The means of the prior 20 cases of robotic and open cystectomy were used to perform a comparative cost analysis. RESULTS: Mean fixed operating room costs for robotic cases were $1,634 higher than for open cases. Operating room variable costs were also higher by a difference of $570, directly related to increased operating room time. Hospital costs were nearly identical for the fixed component while variable costs were $564 higher for the open approach secondary to higher transfusion costs and longer mean length of stay. Based on these findings robotic cystectomy is associated with an overall higher financial cost of $1,640 (robotic $16,248 vs open $14,608). Cost calculators were constructed based on these fixed and variable costs for each surgical approach to demonstrate the expected total costs based on varying operating room time and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy is associated with a higher financial cost (+$1,640) than the open approach in the perioperative setting. However, this analysis is limited by its single institution design and a multicenter followup study is required to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Copyright 2010 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Recently robotic approaches to cystectomy have been reported, and while clinical and oncological efficacy continues to be evaluated, potential financial costs have not been clearly evaluated. In this study we present a financial analysis using current cost structures and clinical outcomes for robotic and open cystectomy for bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The financial costs of robotic and open radical cystectomy were categorized into operating room and hospital components, and further divided into fixed and variable costs for each. Fixed operating room costs for open cases involved base cost as well as disposable equipment costs while robotic fixed costs included the amortized machine cost as well as equipment and maintenance. Variable operating room costs were directly related to length of surgery. Variable hospital costs were directly related to transfusion requirement and length of stay. The means of the prior 20 cases of robotic and open cystectomy were used to perform a comparative cost analysis. RESULTS: Mean fixed operating room costs for robotic cases were $1,634 higher than for open cases. Operating room variable costs were also higher by a difference of $570, directly related to increased operating room time. Hospital costs were nearly identical for the fixed component while variable costs were $564 higher for the open approach secondary to higher transfusion costs and longer mean length of stay. Based on these findings robotic cystectomy is associated with an overall higher financial cost of $1,640 (robotic $16,248 vs open $14,608). Cost calculators were constructed based on these fixed and variable costs for each surgical approach to demonstrate the expected total costs based on varying operating room time and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy is associated with a higher financial cost (+$1,640) than the open approach in the perioperative setting. However, this analysis is limited by its single institution design and a multicenter followup study is required to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Copyright 2010 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jason F Flamiatos; Yiyi Chen; William E Lambert; Ann Martinez Acevedo; Thomas M Becker; Jasper C Bash; Christopher L Amling Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2018-06-08
Authors: Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Silberstein; Gal E Keren Paz; S Machele Donat; Jonathan A Coleman; Sheila Mathew; Andrew Vickers; Geoffrey C Schnorr; Michael A Feuerstein; Bruce Rapkin; Raul O Parra; Harry W Herr; Vincent P Laudone Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 20.096