Literature DB >> 22341274

Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery.

Hua-yin Yu1, Nathanael D Hevelone, Stuart R Lipsitz, Keith J Kowalczyk, Jim C Hu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery has been aggressively marketed and rapidly adopted, there are few comparative effectiveness studies that support its purported advantages compared to open and laparoscopic surgery. We used a population based approach to assess use, costs and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for common robotic assisted urological procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample we identified the most common urological robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery procedures during the last quarter of 2008 as radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and pyeloplasty. Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery and open surgery use, costs and inpatient outcomes were compared using propensity score methods.
RESULTS: Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery was performed for 52.7% of radical prostatectomies, 27.3% of pyeloplasties, 11.5% of partial nephrectomies and 2.3% of nephrectomies. For radical prostatectomy robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery was more prevalent than open surgery among white patients in high volume, urban hospitals (all p≤0.015). Geographic variations were found in the use of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery. Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery and laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery were associated with shorter length of stay for all procedures, with robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery being the shortest for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy (all p<0.001). For most procedures robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery and laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery resulted in fewer deaths, complications, transfusions and more routine discharges. However, robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery was more costly than laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for most procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: While robotic assisted and laparoscopic surgery are associated with fewer deaths, complications, transfusions and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open surgery, robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery is more costly than laparoscopic and open surgery. Additional studies are needed to better delineate the comparative and cost-effectiveness of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery relative to laparoscopic surgery and open surgery. Copyright Â
© 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22341274     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  72 in total

Review 1.  Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Fred Brody; Nathan G Richards
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start.

Authors:  Blair A Wormer; Kristian T Dacey; Kristopher B Williams; Joel F Bradley; Amanda L Walters; Vedra A Augenstein; Dimitrios Stefanidis; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy for Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Comparative Study.

Authors:  Li Zeng; Min Tian; Si-Si Chen; Yu-Ting Ke; Li Geng; Sheng-Li Yang; Lin Ye
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2019-10-14

4.  Does pure robotic partial nephrectomy provide similar perioperative outcomes when compared to the combined laparoscopic-robotic approach?

Authors:  A C Harbin; G Bandi; A A Vora; X Cheng; V Stanford; K McGeagh; J Murdock; R Ghasemian; J Lynch; F Bedell; M Verghese; J J Hwang
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-06-05

5.  Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for the prevention of perioperative complications.

Authors:  Stephan Buse; Carolin E Hach; Phillip Klumpen; Assen Alexandrov; Rene Mager; Alexandre Mottrie; Axel Haferkamp
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers.

Authors:  James Villamere; Alana Gebhart; Stephen Vu; Ninh T Nguyen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  The 100 most influential manuscripts in robotic surgery: a bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Tara M Connelly; Zoya Malik; Rishabh Sehgal; Gerrard Byrnes; J Calvin Coffey; Colin Peirce
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-04-04

8.  Risk factors for postoperative complications in robotic general surgery.

Authors:  Giovanni Fantola; Laurent Brunaud; Phi-Linh Nguyen-Thi; Adeline Germain; Ahmet Ayav; Laurent Bresler
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2016-09-30

9.  Predictors and Cost of Readmission in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kenneth L Urish; Yongmei Qin; Benjamin Y Li; Tudor Borza; Michael Sessine; Peter Kirk; Brent K Hollenbeck; Jonathan E Helm; Mariel S Lavieri; Ted A Skolarus; Bruce L Jacobs
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Nephrometry score matched robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Pooya Banapour; George A Abdelsayed; Zoe Bider-Canfield; Peter A Elliott; Patrick S Kilday; Gary W Chien
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-03-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.