OBJECTIVE: To perform a contemporary comparative cost-analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). METHODS: All patients undergoing RARP (n = 115) or RRP (n = 358) by 1 of 4 surgeons at a single institution during a 15-month period were retrospectively reviewed. The hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, hospital charges, reimbursement, and direct and indirect hospital costs were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The mean LOS between patients undergoing RARP (1.2 ± 0.6 days) and RRP (1.4 ± 0.8 days) was not significantly different. The operating room supply costs per case were almost 7 times greater for RARP ($2852 ± $528) than for RRP ($417 ± $59; P < .05). The ancillary, cardiology, imaging, administrative, laboratory, and pharmacy costs were not significantly different between the 2 approaches. The mean total costs per case for RARP exceeded the total costs for RRP by 62% ($14 006 ± $1641 vs $8686 ± $1989; P < .05). Payment to the hospital from all sources was nearly equivalent: $10 011 for RRP and $9993 for RARP. Therefore, the average profit for each RRP was $1325 and each RARP lost $4013. CONCLUSION: In the present single-institution analysis, the total actual costs associated with RARP were significantly greater than those for RRP and were attributable to the robotic equipment and supplies.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a contemporary comparative cost-analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). METHODS: All patients undergoing RARP (n = 115) or RRP (n = 358) by 1 of 4 surgeons at a single institution during a 15-month period were retrospectively reviewed. The hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, hospital charges, reimbursement, and direct and indirect hospital costs were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The mean LOS between patients undergoing RARP (1.2 ± 0.6 days) and RRP (1.4 ± 0.8 days) was not significantly different. The operating room supply costs per case were almost 7 times greater for RARP ($2852 ± $528) than for RRP ($417 ± $59; P < .05). The ancillary, cardiology, imaging, administrative, laboratory, and pharmacy costs were not significantly different between the 2 approaches. The mean total costs per case for RARP exceeded the total costs for RRP by 62% ($14 006 ± $1641 vs $8686 ± $1989; P < .05). Payment to the hospital from all sources was nearly equivalent: $10 011 for RRP and $9993 for RARP. Therefore, the average profit for each RRP was $1325 and each RARP lost $4013. CONCLUSION: In the present single-institution analysis, the total actual costs associated with RARP were significantly greater than those for RRP and were attributable to the robotic equipment and supplies.
Authors: J Kenneth Byrd; Kenneth J Smith; John R de Almeida; W Greer Albergotti; Kara S Davis; Seungwon W Kim; Jonas T Johnson; Robert L Ferris; Umamaheswar Duvvuri Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.497
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
Authors: Felix Preisser; Sebastiano Nazzani; Elio Mazzone; Sophie Knipper; Marco Bandini; Zhe Tian; Alexander Haese; Fred Saad; Kevin C Zorn; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Florian Rudolf Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Sam B Bhayani; Paul L Nguyen; David Penson; Jim Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096