BACKGROUND: Robotic mitral valve repair has been performed in Australia since 2004. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-analysis of robotic mitral valve repair (MVR) with direct comparison to conventional MVR surgery. METHODS: All isolated MVRs performed within one metropolitan hospital network, between June 2005 and June 2008, were retrospectively compared. Ad hoc cost analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There were 107 robotic and 40 conventional MVRs performed. The post-operative degrees of mitral regurgitation were comparable. Total operating time was 18% longer in robotic compared to conventional (239 min vs. 202 min, p<0.001, 95% CI: 11-27%). In robotic, Intensive Care Unit stay was reduced by 19% (p=0.002, 37 h vs. 45 h), and length of hospital stay was reduced by 26% (p<0.001, 6.47 days vs. 8.76 days). Mean hospital cost, without including capital costs, was not significantly increased (AUD$18,503 vs. AUD$17,880 p=0.176, 95% CI: -282 to 1,530). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic mitral repair can be performed with similar immediate repair success rates as conventional surgery with a shorter recovery time, but a slightly longer operative time. There is no significant increase in cost over conventional surgery. Crown Copyright (c) 2010. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND:Robotic mitral valve repair has been performed in Australia since 2004. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-analysis of robotic mitral valve repair (MVR) with direct comparison to conventional MVR surgery. METHODS: All isolated MVRs performed within one metropolitan hospital network, between June 2005 and June 2008, were retrospectively compared. Ad hoc cost analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There were 107 robotic and 40 conventional MVRs performed. The post-operative degrees of mitral regurgitation were comparable. Total operating time was 18% longer in robotic compared to conventional (239 min vs. 202 min, p<0.001, 95% CI: 11-27%). In robotic, Intensive Care Unit stay was reduced by 19% (p=0.002, 37 h vs. 45 h), and length of hospital stay was reduced by 26% (p<0.001, 6.47 days vs. 8.76 days). Mean hospital cost, without including capital costs, was not significantly increased (AUD$18,503 vs. AUD$17,880 p=0.176, 95% CI: -282 to 1,530). CONCLUSIONS:Robotic mitral repair can be performed with similar immediate repair success rates as conventional surgery with a shorter recovery time, but a slightly longer operative time. There is no significant increase in cost over conventional surgery. Crown Copyright (c) 2010. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors: Tomislav Mihaljevic; Marijan Koprivanac; Marta Kelava; Avi Goodman; Craig Jarrett; Sarah J Williams; A Marc Gillinov; Gurjyot Bajwa; Stephanie L Mick; Johannes Bonatti; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Christopher Cao; Hugh Wolfenden; Kevin Liou; Faraz Pathan; Sunil Gupta; Thomas A Nienaber; David Chandrakumar; Praveen Indraratna; Tristan D Yan Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2015-07
Authors: Michael Seco; Christopher Cao; Paul Modi; Paul G Bannon; Michael K Wilson; Michael P Vallely; Kevin Phan; Martin Misfeld; Friedrich Mohr; Tristan D Yan Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2013-11
Authors: Peter van Dam; Jan Hauspy; Luc Verkinderen; Xuan Bich Trinh; Pieter-Jan van Dam; Luc Van Looy; Luc Dirix Journal: Obstet Gynecol Int Date: 2011-09-18