Literature DB >> 26530837

Cost comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus standard laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Marc L Winter1, Szu-Yun Leu2,3, David C Lagrew4, Gerardo Bustillo5.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess if the cost of robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy is similar to the cost of standard laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by surgeons past their initial learning curve. A retrospective chart review of all hysterectomies was performed for benign indications without concomitant major procedures at Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (OCMMC) and Saddleback Memorial Medical Center between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2013. Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomies (RTLH) and standard laparoscopic hysterectomies (LAVH and TLH) were compared. Data analyzed included only those hysterectomies performed by surgeons past their initial learning curve (minimum of 30 previous robotic cases). The primary outcome was the direct total cost of patient's hospitalization related to hysterectomy. The secondary outcomes were estimated blood loss, surgery time, and days in hospital post-surgery. A multiple linear regression model was applied to evaluate the difference between RTLH and LAVH/TLH in hospital cost, blood loss, and surgery time, while adjusting for hospital, patient's age, body mass index (BMI), whether or not the patient had previous abdominal/pelvic surgery, and uterine weight. The χ (2) test was applied to examine the association between hospital stay and surgery type. There were 93 hysterectomies (5 LAVH, 88 RTLH) performed at OCMMC and 90 hysterectomies (6 LAVH, 17 TLH, 67 RTLH) performed at Saddleback Memorial Medical Center. The hospitalization total cost result showed that, after adjusting for hospital, age, BMI, previous abdominal/pelvic surgery, and uterine weight, RTLH was not significantly more expensive than LAVH/TLH (mean diff. = $283.1, 95 % CI = [-569.6, 1135.9]; p = 0.51) at the 2 study hospitals. However, the cost at OCMMC was significantly higher than Saddleback Memorial Medical Center (mean diff. = $2008.7, 95 % CI = [1380.6, 2636.7]; p < 0.0001); and the cost increased significantly with uterine weight (β = 3.8, 95 % CI = [2.3, 5.3]; p < 0.0001). Further analysis showed significantly less blood loss (mean diff. = -78.5 ml, 95 % CI = [-116.8, -40.3]; p < 0.0001) and shorter surgery time (mean diff. = -21.9 min., 95 % CI = [-39.6, -4.2]; p = 0.016) for RTLH versus LAVH/TLH. There was no significant association between hospital stay and surgery type (p = 0.43). After adjusting for patient-level covariates, there was no statistically significant cost difference of performing robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus standard laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by surgeons past their initial learning curve at two community hospitals.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost; Hysterectomy; Robotic

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26530837      PMCID: PMC5926192          DOI: 10.1007/s11701-015-0526-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  19 in total

1.  A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Beri Ridgeway; Amy J Park; J Eric Jelovsek; Matthew D Barber; Tommaso Falcone; Jon I Einarsson
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy.

Authors:  Celine Lönnerfors; Petur Reynisson; Jan Persson
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 4.137

3.  Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study.

Authors:  Dimitri Sarlos; Lavonne Kots; Nebojsa Stevanovic; Gabriel Schaer
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 2.435

4.  An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Ana I Tergas; Thomas J Herzog; William M Burke; Sharyn N Lewin; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 5.  Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease.

Authors:  Hongqian Liu; DongHao Lu; Lei Wang; Gang Shi; Huan Song; Jane Clarke
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-02-15

6.  Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Resad P Pasic; John A Rizzo; Hai Fang; Susan Ross; Matt Moore; Candace Gunnarsson
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 4.137

7.  Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques.

Authors:  Maria C Bell; Jenny Torgerson; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; Allison Wierda Suttle; Sharon Hunt
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Joshua L Woelk; Elizabeth R Casiano; Amy L Weaver; Bobbie S Gostout; Emanuel C Trabuco; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?

Authors:  John P Lenihan; Carol Kovanda; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.137

View more
  7 in total

1.  [Robot-assisted surgery - Progress or expensive toy? : Matched-pair comparative analysis of robot-assisted cholecystectomy vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy].

Authors:  R Albrecht; D Haase; R Zippel; H Koch; U Settmacher
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Uterine manipulator in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: safety and usefulness.

Authors:  Yara Abdel Khalek; Roger Bitar; Costas Christoforou; Simone Garzon; Alessandro Tropea; Antonio Biondi; Zaki Sleiman
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2019-10-12

3.  Predictors of the cost of hysterectomy for benign indications.

Authors:  Abdelrahman AlAshqar; Metin E Goktepe; Gokhan S Kilic; Mostafa A Borahay
Journal:  J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-10-09

Review 4.  A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies.

Authors:  Malene Korsholm; Jan Sørensen; Ole Mogensen; Chunsen Wu; Kamilla Karlsen; Pernille T Jensen
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2018-09-07

5.  New Surgical Technique for Robotic Myomectomy: Continuous Locking Suture on Myoma (LSOM) Technique.

Authors:  Sa Ra Lee; Eun Sil Lee; Hye Lim Eum; Young-Jae Lee; Shin-Wha Lee; Jeong Yeol Park; Dae-Shik Suh; Dae-Yeon Kim; Sung Hoon Kim; Yong-Man Kim; Young-Tak Kim
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 4.241

6.  Economic evaluation of different routes of surgery for the management of endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Esther L Moss; George Morgan; Antony Martin; Panos Sarhanis; Thomas Ind
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Robot-Assisted Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Different Classes of Obesity: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Ilse Haveman; Willem Jan van Weelden; Elisabeth A Roovers; Arjan A Kraayenbrink; F Paul H L J Dijkhuizen
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.789

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.