Literature DB >> 22959352

Hospitalization costs for radical prostatectomy attributable to robotic surgery.

Simon P Kim1, Nilay D Shah, R Jeffrey Karnes, Christopher J Weight, Nathan D Shippee, Leona C Han, Stephen A Boorjian, Marc C Smaldone, Igor Frank, Matthew T Gettman, Matthew K Tollefson, R Houston Thompson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With health technology innovation responsible for higher health care costs, it is essential to have accurate estimates regarding the differential costs between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP).
OBJECTIVE: To describe the total hospitalization costs attributable to robotic and open surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a population-based cohort by merging the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the American Hospital Association (AHA) survey from 2006 to 2008, we identified 29 837 prostate cancer patients who underwent RP.
INTERVENTIONS: ORP and RARP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was total hospitalization costs adjusted to year 2008 US dollars. Generalized estimating equations were used to identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with total hospitalization costs and to estimate costs of ORP and RARP adjusted for case mix and hospital teaching status, location, and annual case volume. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 20 424 (68.5%) patients were surgically treated with RARP, and 9413 (31.5%) patients underwent ORP. Compared to ORP, patients undergoing RARP had shorter median length of stay (1 d vs 2 d; p<0.001) and were less likely to experience any postoperative complications (8.2% vs 11.3%; p<0.001). However, patients undergoing RARP had higher median hospitalization costs ($10409 vs $8862; p<0.001). After adjusting for patient and hospital features, RARP was associated with higher total hospitalization costs compared to ORP ($11932 vs $9390; p<0.001). Our results are limited by a study design using retrospective population-based data.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite RARP having lower complications and shorter length of stay than ORP, total hospitalization costs are higher for patients treated with RARP compared with those treated with ORP.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22959352     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  15 in total

1.  Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population.

Authors:  S P Kim; C P Gross; M C Smaldone; L C Han; H Van Houten; Y Lotan; R S Svatek; R H Thompson; R J Karnes; Q-D Trinh; A Kutikov; N D Shah
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 5.554

2.  Open versus minimally invasive surgical approaches in pediatric urology: Trends in utilization and complications.

Authors:  Rohit Tejwani; Brian J Young; Hsin-Hsiao S Wang; Steven Wolf; J Todd Purves; John S Wiener; Jonathan C Routh
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 1.830

3.  Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper-tract urothelial cancer: A population-based assessment of costs and perioperative outcomes.

Authors:  Vincent Trudeau; Giorgio Gandaglia; Jonas Shiffmann; Ioana Popa; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Regional differences in total hospital charges between open and robotically assisted radical prostatectomy in the United States.

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

Review 5.  Cost of New Technologies in Prostate Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review of Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy, Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy, and Proton Beam Therapy.

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

Review 6.  Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiu-Wu Pan; Xin-Ming Cui; Jing-Fei Teng; Dong-Xu Zhang; Zhi-Jun Wang; Fa-Jun Qu; Yi Gao; Xin-Gang Cui; Dan-Feng Xu
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 0.656

7.  Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share?

Authors:  Deborah R Kaye; Jeffrey K Mullins; H Ballentine Carter; Trinity J Bivalacqua
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Regional Cost Variations of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Compared With Open Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Izak Faiena; Viktor Y Dombrovskiy; Parth K Modi; Neal Patel; Rutveej Patel; Amirali H Salmasi; Jaspreet S Parihar; Eric A Singer; Isaac Y Kim
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 2.872

9.  Comparative Effectiveness of Cancer Control and Survival after Robot-Assisted versus Open Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Padraic O'Malley; Bilal Chughtai; Abby Isaacs; Jialin Mao; Jason D Wright; Dawn Hershman; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Development of a Patient-Based Model for Estimating Operative Times for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Neil B Huben; Ahmed A Hussein; Paul R May; Michelle Whittum; Collin Krasowski; Youssef E Ahmed; Zhe Jing; Hijab Khan; Hyung L Kim; Thomas Schwaab; Willie Underwood; Eric C Kauffman; James L Mohler; Khurshid A Guru
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.