Literature DB >> 20733453

Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

Jason C Barnett1, John P Judd, Jennifer M Wu, Charles D Scales, Evan R Myers, Laura J Havrilesky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To use decision modeling to compare the costs associated with robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer.
METHODS: Three separate models were used, each with sensitivity analysis: 1) a societal perspective model, which included inpatient hospital costs, robotic expenses, and lost wages and caregiver costs; 2) a hospital perspective plus robot costs model, which was identical to the societal perspective model but excluded lost wages and caregiver costs; and 3) a hospital perspective without robot costs model, which was identical to the hospital perspective plus robot costs model except that it excluded initial cost of the robot.
RESULTS: The societal perspective model predicted laparoscopy ($10,128) as the least expensive approach followed by robotic and ($11,476) and open hysterectomy ($12,847). Societal perspective model sensitivity analyses predicted robotic hysterectomy to be least expensive when robotic disposable equipment cost less than $1,046 per case (baseline cost $2,394). In the hospital perspective plus robot costs model, laparoscopy was least expensive ($6,581) followed by open ($7,009) and robotic hysterectomy ($8,770); however, if hospital stay after open surgery was less than 2.9 days, open hysterectomy was least expensive. In the hospital perspective without robot costs model, laparoscopy remained least expensive, but robotic surgery became least expensive if the cost of robotic disposable equipment was reduced to less than $1,496 per case.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy is the least expensive surgical approach for the treatment of endometrial cancer. Robotic is less costly than abdominal hysterectomy when the societal costs associated with recovery time are accounted for and is most economically attractive if disposable equipment costs can be minimized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20733453     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ee6e4d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  36 in total

1.  Risk factors for prolonged hospitalization after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Behrouz Zand; Michael Frumovitz; Matias F Jofre; Alpa M Nick; Ricardo Dos Reis; Mark F Munsell; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Charles Levenback; Pamela T Soliman; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-06-02       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and staging for the treatment of endometrial cancer: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy and abdominal approaches.

Authors:  Ricardo Estape; Nicholas Lambrou; Eric Estape; Oscar Vega; Trisha Ojea
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-06-25

3.  The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Zhamak Khorgami; Wei T Li; Theresa N Jackson; C Anthony Howard; Guido M Sclabas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Make New Friends But Keep the Old: Minimally Invasive Surgery Training in Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship Programs.

Authors:  Kari L Ring; Pedro T Ramirez; Lesley B Conrad; William Burke; R Wendel Naumann; Mark F Munsell; Michael Frumovitz
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 5.  Robotic surgery for gynaecologic cancer: an overview.

Authors:  René Verheijen; Ronald Zweemer
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 5.075

6.  Cost differences among robotic, vaginal, and abdominal hysterectomy.

Authors:  Joshua L Woelk; Bijan J Borah; Emanuel C Trabuco; Herbert C Heien; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Cost analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy vs open approach performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center.

Authors:  Antonio Pellegrino; Gianluca Raffaello Damiani; Giorgio Fachechi; Silvia Corso; Cecilia Pirovano; Claudia Trio; Mario Villa; Daniela Turoli; Aly Youssef
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-07-26

Review 8.  Contemporary quality of life issues affecting gynecologic cancer survivors.

Authors:  Jeanne Carter; Richard Penson; Richard Barakat; Lari Wenzel
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 3.722

9.  Health care cost consequences of using robot technology for hysterectomy: a register-based study of consecutive patients during 2006-2013.

Authors:  Karin Rosenkilde Laursen; Vibe Bolvig Hyldgård; Pernille Tine Jensen; Rikke Søgaard
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-07-10

10.  A comparison of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic or robotic para-aortic lymphadenectomy for staging of endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Janelle Pakish; Pamela T Soliman; Michael Frumovitz; Shannon N Westin; Kathleen M Schmeler; Ricardo Dos Reis; Mark F Munsell; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 5.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.