Literature DB >> 22277634

Prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic vs. open pyeloplasty in children: Single centre contemporary evaluation comparing two procedures over a 1-year period.

Katherine Moore1, Armando J Lorenzo2, Suzanne Turner2, Darius J Bägli2, Joao L Pippi Salle2, Walid A Farhat2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopy in pediatric urological surgery continues to gradually gain acceptance. Since economic implications are of increasing importance in our cost-containment environment, few studies have compared the expense associated with open to laparoscopic approaches. We present a prospective comparative cost-analysis between the laparoscopic (LP) and open pediatric pyeloplasty (OP).
METHODS: Over a period of a year (2007-2008), 54 consecutives pyeloplasties were performed. The "traditional" OP was performed in 33 patients and the remaining 21 children underwent LP. Costs were prospectively collected for each group and divided based on amounts incurred by all different departments involved: nursing, laboratory, diagnostic imaging, pharmacy and operative room.
RESULTS: Overall, the average cost for a LP was CDN$6240 compared to CDN$5079 for an OP with a median hospital stay of 2 days (range OP: 1-18, LP: 1-7). The main difference was found in operative room expenses (OP: $2508 vs. LP: $3925). The higher cost could not be solely explained by the use of disposable items, which only subtracts $335 per procedure (23.6% of the cost difference between OP and LP). Length of time spent in the operating room was 1.2 hours longer for the LP and appears to be the main factor explaining the cost difference.
CONCLUSION: Our findings show that at our institution, pediatric LP is more expensive than OP. This cost difference is mainly due to operating room time. For cost-containment purposes, efforts aimed at increasing efficiency in the operating room may help equalize both approaches.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 22277634      PMCID: PMC3650789          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.11096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  22 in total

1.  Cost comparison for laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: analysis of individual parameters.

Authors:  Yair Lotan; Matthew T Gettman; Claus G Roehrborn; Margaret S Pearle; Jeffrey A Cadeddu
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  A study of added costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on surgery preference cards.

Authors:  Jeff W Allen; Hiram C Polk
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 0.688

3.  The evolution of laparoscopy in pediatric urology--intelligent design?

Authors:  Craig A Peters
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis.

Authors:  Sam B Bhayani; Richard E Link; John M Varkarakis; Louis R Kavoussi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Pediatric laparoscopic splenectomy: are there real advantages in comparison with the traditional open approach?

Authors:  C Esposito; F Corcione; V Garipoli; G Ascione
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: an analysis of first 100 cases and important lessons learned.

Authors:  Onkar Singh; Shilpi Singh Gupta; Nand Kishore Arvind
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 2.370

7.  Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Heidi A Penn; John M Gatti; Sara M Hoestje; Romano T DeMarco; Charles L Snyder; J Patrick Murphy
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-06-19       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a referral center: lessons learned.

Authors:  Luis H Braga; Joao Pippi-Salle; Armando J Lorenzo; Darius Bagli; Antoine E Khoury; Walid A Farhat
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 9.  Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: cost comparison with analysis of individual parameters.

Authors:  Sangtae Park; Margaret S Pearle; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Yair Lotan
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty.

Authors:  D Duane Baldwin; Jennifer A Dunbar; Nancy Wells; Elspeth M McDougall
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.942

View more
  5 in total

1.  The importance of quantifying value.

Authors:  Barry A Kogan
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Watching the bottom line in urology.

Authors:  D Robert Siemens
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Instituting robotic pediatric urologic surgery in the Canadian healthcare system: Evaluating the feasibility and outcomes of robot-assisted pyeloplasty and ureteric reimplantation.

Authors:  Noah Stern; Peter Wang; Sumit Dave
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Minimally invasive open dismembered pyeloplasty technique: Miniature incision, muscle-splitting dissection, and nopelvis reduction in children.

Authors:  Farzaneh Sharifiaghdas; Mahboubeh Mirzaei; Azar Daneshpajooh; Shahin Abbaszadeh
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-08-11

5.  Impact of Extracorporeal Stent Placement during Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty on Operative Duration.

Authors:  Hasan Demirkan; Kaya Horasanli
Journal:  Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul       Date:  2021-07-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.