Michael J Ehlert1, Priyanka Gupta2, Jonathan Park3, Larry T Sirls4. 1. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Metro Urology, Woodbury, MN. Electronic address: michael.ehlert@gmail.com. 2. Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI. 3. Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI. 4. Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI; Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the hospital-realized cost difference between transvaginal mesh prolapse repair and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: Consecutive transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy cases from January 2012 to December 2013 were evaluated. Patient clinical and operative data were recorded. The total institutional costs (direct and indirect) for each procedure were obtained and subcategorized by area. Independent sample t tests and chi-squared analysis were performed. RESULTS: One hundred twenty women underwent transvaginal mesh repair whereas 106 underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy. Body mass index was similar between groups (28.1 vs 27.5) as was midurethral sling placement (50% vs 59%). Robotic patients were younger (61 years vs 67 years., P < .001) and more likely to undergo concomitant hysterectomy (58.5% vs 26.7%). There were similar rates for additional compartment repairs. Amortized costs for robotic purchase and maintenance were included with all depreciated equipment and realized by all patients undergoing surgery. Overall mean robotic operative time was longer with and without hysterectomy (279 minutes vs 174 minutes, P < .001 and 201 minutes vs 91 minutes, P < .001). Mean total costs were higher with robotic technique ($9675 vs $6718, P < .001), primarily driven by anesthesia ($1141 vs $675, P < .001), and operative ($6883 vs $4487, P < .001) costs. No differences for total costs were seen in laboratory fees, recovery room, or inpatient nursing. CONCLUSION: Transvaginal prolapse repair is less costly than robotic sacrocolpopexy. Length of surgery and additional robotic supplies drive the majority of increased operative costs. Costs attributed to robot purchase and maintenance do not uniquely factor into the procedure costs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the hospital-realized cost difference between transvaginal mesh prolapse repair and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: Consecutive transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy cases from January 2012 to December 2013 were evaluated. Patient clinical and operative data were recorded. The total institutional costs (direct and indirect) for each procedure were obtained and subcategorized by area. Independent sample t tests and chi-squared analysis were performed. RESULTS: One hundred twenty women underwent transvaginal mesh repair whereas 106 underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy. Body mass index was similar between groups (28.1 vs 27.5) as was midurethral sling placement (50% vs 59%). Robotic patients were younger (61 years vs 67 years., P < .001) and more likely to undergo concomitant hysterectomy (58.5% vs 26.7%). There were similar rates for additional compartment repairs. Amortized costs for robotic purchase and maintenance were included with all depreciated equipment and realized by all patients undergoing surgery. Overall mean robotic operative time was longer with and without hysterectomy (279 minutes vs 174 minutes, P < .001 and 201 minutes vs 91 minutes, P < .001). Mean total costs were higher with robotic technique ($9675 vs $6718, P < .001), primarily driven by anesthesia ($1141 vs $675, P < .001), and operative ($6883 vs $4487, P < .001) costs. No differences for total costs were seen in laboratory fees, recovery room, or inpatient nursing. CONCLUSION: Transvaginal prolapse repair is less costly than robotic sacrocolpopexy. Length of surgery and additional robotic supplies drive the majority of increased operative costs. Costs attributed to robot purchase and maintenance do not uniquely factor into the procedure costs.
Authors: Renaud de Tayrac; Michel Cosson; Laure Panel; Clara Compan; Mohammed Zakarya Zemmache; Sophie Bouvet; Laurent Wagner; Brigitte Fatton; Géry Lamblin Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 1.932