OBJECTIVE: To compare immediate perioperative direct costs of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN), managed under a common care pathway. METHODS: Retrospective review of detailed institutional cost data for patients treated with OPN and RPN during 2011 was conducted. Cost and clinical data of OPN and RPN were compared for all patients and for patients stratified by length of stay (LOS), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and RENAL nephrometry scores. RESULTS: The study cohort included 190 OPN and 63 RPN cases. OPN was associated with higher ASA scores (P <.001), shorter operative times (P = .014), and higher estimated blood loss (P <.001). Median (interquartile range) LOS was 2 days (2-3 days) for OPN compared with 1 day (1-2 days) for RPN (P <.001). Median perioperative cost of OPN was lower than that of RPN with a difference of $3091 (P <.001). Although hospitalization costs were higher in OPN, surgical costs were higher in RPN ($854 and $3695 difference in median costs, respectively; P <.001 for both). The total cost of OPN for patients with an above-average LOS remained lower than that of RPN ($2680 difference in median costs; P = .001). RPN costs remained significantly higher when stratifying patients by their ASA and RENAL nephrometry scores. CONCLUSION: Despite the shorter hospital LOS associated with RPN, the immediate perioperative cost of OPN was lower than that of RPN for patients managed under a common care pathway, mainly due to high robotic purchase and maintenance costs. In light of the current health care debate, such financial disincentives may compromise the sustainability of advances in medical technology.
OBJECTIVE: To compare immediate perioperative direct costs of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN), managed under a common care pathway. METHODS: Retrospective review of detailed institutional cost data for patients treated with OPN and RPN during 2011 was conducted. Cost and clinical data of OPN and RPN were compared for all patients and for patients stratified by length of stay (LOS), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and RENAL nephrometry scores. RESULTS: The study cohort included 190 OPN and 63 RPN cases. OPN was associated with higher ASA scores (P <.001), shorter operative times (P = .014), and higher estimated blood loss (P <.001). Median (interquartile range) LOS was 2 days (2-3 days) for OPN compared with 1 day (1-2 days) for RPN (P <.001). Median perioperative cost of OPN was lower than that of RPN with a difference of $3091 (P <.001). Although hospitalization costs were higher in OPN, surgical costs were higher in RPN ($854 and $3695 difference in median costs, respectively; P <.001 for both). The total cost of OPN for patients with an above-average LOS remained lower than that of RPN ($2680 difference in median costs; P = .001). RPN costs remained significantly higher when stratifying patients by their ASA and RENAL nephrometry scores. CONCLUSION: Despite the shorter hospital LOS associated with RPN, the immediate perioperative cost of OPN was lower than that of RPN for patients managed under a common care pathway, mainly due to high robotic purchase and maintenance costs. In light of the current health care debate, such financial disincentives may compromise the sustainability of advances in medical technology.