INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to identify and compare the costs of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) at our centre. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of our first 70 consecutive LRP cases and 70 consecutive RRP cases at St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. We performed cost analysis, including operating room costs, disposable instruments, blood transfusions, analgesic requirements and length of hospital stay. Overall expenses were then analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Preoperative patient demographics and disease stages were comparable between the LRP and RRP groups. On a per procedure basis, large discrepancies were found in mean disposable instrument costs (LRP = $659.18 vs. RRP = $236.59), operating room costs (LRP = $4278.00 vs. RRP = $3139.00), mean cost of blood transfusions (LRP = $21.00 vs. RRP = $394.34), mean analgesia requirements (LRP = $12.94 vs. RRP = $41.06) and mean hospital stay bed costs (LRP = $3690.00 vs. RRP = $5027.14). Overall, costs for all patients in the LRP and RRP groups, respectively, were $606 307.29 and $618 721.57 with a cost saving of $12 414.28 in favour of the LRP arm. CONCLUSION: At our institution, we found that LRP costs are slightly less than those for RRP. Higher operative time and disposable instrument expenses are offset by the shorter hospital stays, fewer blood transfusions and less analgesic requirements for the LRP group. Further financial advantages for LRP will likely be achieved with additional reduction of operating room time and by minimizing disposables.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to identify and compare the costs of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) at our centre. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of our first 70 consecutive LRP cases and 70 consecutive RRP cases at St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. We performed cost analysis, including operating room costs, disposable instruments, blood transfusions, analgesic requirements and length of hospital stay. Overall expenses were then analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Preoperative patient demographics and disease stages were comparable between the LRP and RRP groups. On a per procedure basis, large discrepancies were found in mean disposable instrument costs (LRP = $659.18 vs. RRP = $236.59), operating room costs (LRP = $4278.00 vs. RRP = $3139.00), mean cost of blood transfusions (LRP = $21.00 vs. RRP = $394.34), mean analgesia requirements (LRP = $12.94 vs. RRP = $41.06) and mean hospital stay bed costs (LRP = $3690.00 vs. RRP = $5027.14). Overall, costs for all patients in the LRP and RRP groups, respectively, were $606 307.29 and $618 721.57 with a cost saving of $12 414.28 in favour of the LRP arm. CONCLUSION: At our institution, we found that LRP costs are slightly less than those for RRP. Higher operative time and disposable instrument expenses are offset by the shorter hospital stays, fewer blood transfusions and less analgesic requirements for the LRP group. Further financial advantages for LRP will likely be achieved with additional reduction of operating room time and by minimizing disposables.
Authors: Abbas Basiri; Jean Jmch de la Rosette; Shahin Tabatabaei; Henry H Woo; M Pilar Laguna; Hamidreza Shemshaki Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 4.226