David S Strosberg1, Michelle C Nguyen2, Peter Muscarella3, Vimal K Narula2. 1. Division of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 W 12th Ave, Suite 654, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. david.strosberg@osumc.edu. 2. Division of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 W 12th Ave, Suite 654, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. 3. Montefiore M-E Center for Cancer Care, Bronx, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery is gaining popularity in general surgery. Our objective was to evaluate and compare operative outcomes and total costs for robotic cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A retrospective review was performed for all patients who underwent single-procedure RC and LC from January 2011 to July 2015 by a single surgeon at a large academic medical center. Demographics, diagnosis, perioperative variables, postoperative complications, 30-day readmissions, and operative and hospital costs were collected and analyzed between those patient groups. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients underwent RC or LC, and comprised the study population. Ninety-seven patients (40.9 %) underwent LC, and 140 patients (50.1 %) underwent RC. Patients who underwent RC had a higher body mass index (p = 0.03), lower rates of coronary artery disease (p < 0.01), and higher rates of chronic cholecystitis (p < 0.01). There were lower rates of intraoperative cholangiography (p < 0.01) and conversion to an open procedure (p < 0.01), however longer operative times (p < 0.01) for patients in the RC group. There were no bile duct injuries in either group, no difference in bile leak rates (p = 0.65), or need for reoperation (p = 1.000). Cost analysis of outpatient-only procedures, excluding cases with conversion to open or use of intraoperative cholangiography, demonstrated higher total charges (p < 0.01) and cost (p < 0.01) and lower revenue (p < 0.01) for RC compared to LC, with no difference in total payments (p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic cholecystectomy appears to be safe although costlier in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further studies are needed to understand the long-term implications of robotic technology, the cost to the health care system, and its role in minimally invasive surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery is gaining popularity in general surgery. Our objective was to evaluate and compare operative outcomes and total costs for robotic cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A retrospective review was performed for all patients who underwent single-procedure RC and LC from January 2011 to July 2015 by a single surgeon at a large academic medical center. Demographics, diagnosis, perioperative variables, postoperative complications, 30-day readmissions, and operative and hospital costs were collected and analyzed between those patient groups. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients underwent RC or LC, and comprised the study population. Ninety-seven patients (40.9 %) underwent LC, and 140 patients (50.1 %) underwent RC. Patients who underwent RC had a higher body mass index (p = 0.03), lower rates of coronary artery disease (p < 0.01), and higher rates of chronic cholecystitis (p < 0.01). There were lower rates of intraoperative cholangiography (p < 0.01) and conversion to an open procedure (p < 0.01), however longer operative times (p < 0.01) for patients in the RC group. There were no bile duct injuries in either group, no difference in bile leak rates (p = 0.65), or need for reoperation (p = 1.000). Cost analysis of outpatient-only procedures, excluding cases with conversion to open or use of intraoperative cholangiography, demonstrated higher total charges (p < 0.01) and cost (p < 0.01) and lower revenue (p < 0.01) for RC compared to LC, with no difference in total payments (p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic cholecystectomy appears to be safe although costlier in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further studies are needed to understand the long-term implications of robotic technology, the cost to the health care system, and its role in minimally invasive surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cholecystectomy; Cost analysis; Laparoscopic surgery; Robotic surgery
Authors: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Richard M Newman; Affan Umer; Bethany J Bozzuto; Jennifer L Dilungo; Scott Ellner Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Nam Hyun Baek; GuangYi Li; Ji Hun Kim; Jae Chul Hwang; Jin Hong Kim; Byung Moo Yoo; Wook Hwan Kim Journal: Hepatogastroenterology Date: 2015-05
Authors: Allan Tsung; David A Geller; Daniel C Sukato; Shirin Sabbaghian; Samer Tohme; Jennifer Steel; Wallis Marsh; Srinevas K Reddy; David L Bartlett Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Anthony Gonzalez; Christian Hernandez Murcia; Rey Romero; Ernesto Escobar; Pedro Garcia; Gail Walker; Michelle Gallas; Eugene Dickens; Bruce McIntosh; William Norwood; Keith Kim; Jorge Rabaza; Don Parris Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: William J Kane; Eric J Charles; J Hunter Mehaffey; Robert B Hawkins; Kathleen B Meneses; Carlos A Tache-Leon; Zequan Yang Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Rivfka Shenoy; Michael A Mederos; Linda Ye; Selene S Mak; Meron M Begashaw; Marika S Booth; Paul G Shekelle; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Mark D Girgis Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-23