Jeffrey J Leow1, Stephen W Reese1, Wei Jiang2, Stuart R Lipsitz2, Joaquim Bellmunt3, Quoc-Dien Trinh4, Benjamin I Chung5, Adam S Kibel6, Steven L Chang7. 1. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA. 6. Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: slchang@bics.bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radical cystectomy (RC) is a morbid procedure associated with high costs. Limited population-based data exist on the complication profile and costs of robot-assisted RC (RARC) compared with open RC (ORC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate morbidity and cost differences between ORC and RARC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent RC at 279 hospitals across the United States between 2004 and 2010. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable logistic and median regression was performed to evaluate 90-d mortality, postoperative complications (Clavien classification), readmission rates, length of stay (LOS), and direct costs. To reduce selection bias, we used propensity weighting with survey weighting to obtain nationally representative estimates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The final weighted cohort included 34 672 ORC and 2101 RARC patients. RARC use increased from 0.6% in 2004 to 12.8% in 2010. Major complication rates (Clavien grade ≥ 3; 17.0% vs 19.8%, p = 0.2) were similar between ORC and RARC (odds ratio [OR]: 1.32; p = 0.42). RARC had 46% decreased odds of minor complications (Clavien grade 1-2; OR: 0.54; p = 0.03). RARC had $4326 higher adjusted 90-d median direct costs (p = 0.004). Although RARC had a significantly shorter LOS (11.8 d vs 10.2 d; p = 0.008), no significant differences in room and board costs existed (p = 0.20). Supply costs for RARC were significantly higher ($6041 vs $3638; p < 0.0001). Morbidity and cost differences were not present among the highest-volume surgeons (≥ 7 cases per year) and hospitals (≥ 19 cases per year). Limitations include use of an administrative database and lack of oncologic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RARC has increased between 2004 and 2010. Compared with ORC, RARC was associated with decreased odds of minor but not major complications and with increased expenditures attributed primarily to higher supply costs. Centralization of ORC and RARC to high-volume providers may minimize these morbidity and cost differences. PATIENT SUMMARY: Using a US population-based cohort, we found that robotic surgery for bladder cancer decreased minor complications, had no impact on major complications and was more costly than open surgery.
BACKGROUND: Radical cystectomy (RC) is a morbid procedure associated with high costs. Limited population-based data exist on the complication profile and costs of robot-assisted RC (RARC) compared with open RC (ORC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate morbidity and cost differences between ORC and RARC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent RC at 279 hospitals across the United States between 2004 and 2010. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable logistic and median regression was performed to evaluate 90-d mortality, postoperative complications (Clavien classification), readmission rates, length of stay (LOS), and direct costs. To reduce selection bias, we used propensity weighting with survey weighting to obtain nationally representative estimates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The final weighted cohort included 34 672 ORC and 2101 RARC patients. RARC use increased from 0.6% in 2004 to 12.8% in 2010. Major complication rates (Clavien grade ≥ 3; 17.0% vs 19.8%, p = 0.2) were similar between ORC and RARC (odds ratio [OR]: 1.32; p = 0.42). RARC had 46% decreased odds of minor complications (Clavien grade 1-2; OR: 0.54; p = 0.03). RARC had $4326 higher adjusted 90-d median direct costs (p = 0.004). Although RARC had a significantly shorter LOS (11.8 d vs 10.2 d; p = 0.008), no significant differences in room and board costs existed (p = 0.20). Supply costs for RARC were significantly higher ($6041 vs $3638; p < 0.0001). Morbidity and cost differences were not present among the highest-volume surgeons (≥ 7 cases per year) and hospitals (≥ 19 cases per year). Limitations include use of an administrative database and lack of oncologic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RARC has increased between 2004 and 2010. Compared with ORC, RARC was associated with decreased odds of minor but not major complications and with increased expenditures attributed primarily to higher supply costs. Centralization of ORC and RARC to high-volume providers may minimize these morbidity and cost differences. PATIENT SUMMARY: Using a US population-based cohort, we found that robotic surgery for bladder cancer decreased minor complications, had no impact on major complications and was more costly than open surgery.
Authors: Tudor Borza; Bruce L Jacobs; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Todd M Morgan; Khaled S Hafez; Cheryl T Lee; Benjamin Y Li; Hye Sung Min; Chang He; Scott M Gilbert; Jonathan E Helm; Mariel S Lavieri; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ted A Skolarus Journal: Urology Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ahmed A Hussein; Kevin J Sexton; Paul R May; Maxwell V Meng; Abolfazl Hosseini; Daniel D Eun; Siamak Daneshmand; Bernard H Bochner; James O Peabody; Ronney Abaza; Eila C Skinner; Richard E Hautmann; Khurshid A Guru Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Takehiro Iwata; Shoji Kimura; Beat Foerster; Nicola Fossati; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Kilian M Gust; Shin Egawa; Yasutomo Nasu; Mohammad Abufaraj; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kristen R Scarpato; Stephen F Kappa; Kathryn M Goggins; Sam S Chang; Joseph A Smith; Peter E Clark; David F Penson; Matthew J Resnick; Daniel A Barocas; Kamran Idrees; Sunil Kripalani; Kelvin A Moses Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2016-09-23
Authors: Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Silberstein; Gal E Keren Paz; S Machele Donat; Jonathan A Coleman; Sheila Mathew; Andrew Vickers; Geoffrey C Schnorr; Michael A Feuerstein; Bruce Rapkin; Raul O Parra; Harry W Herr; Vincent P Laudone Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 20.096