Literature DB >> 27637975

Hospital costs and length of stay related to robot-assisted versus open radical and partial nephrectomy for kidney cancer in the USA.

Jamie E Anderson1, J Kellogg Parsons2,3,4,5, David C Chang1, Mark A Talamini1.   

Abstract

There are scant national outcomes data for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. We assessed costs and length of stay (LOS) related to robot-assisted radical and partial nephrectomy in a nationally representative population database. We performed a cohort analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Using ICD-9 procedure codes, we identified patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for kidney cancer from October 2008 to December 2008. We excluded patients with non-robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures and those under age 18 years. We performed multivariate analyses of LOS and total hospital charges, adjusting for age, race, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and teaching hospital status. Records of 2,242 patients were analyzed. On adjusted multivariate analysis, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy was associated with shorter LOS compared with open surgery (-2.0 days, P = 0.032). Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with shorter LOS compared with open surgery (-1.8 days, P = 0.077). There were no significant differences in total charges for robot-assisted compared with open surgery for either radical (P = 0.631) or partial (P = 0.713) nephrectomy. In this large, population-based analysis, robot-assisted radical and partial nephrectomy were associated with shorter LOS and equivalent hospital charges compared with their open surgery counterparts. These data suggest that, for renal surgery, diminished LOS offsets other hospital costs associated with robot-assisted procedures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopy; Nephrectomy; Outcomes; Partial; Renal cell carcinoma; Robotic

Year:  2011        PMID: 27637975     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0324-1

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


  12 in total

1.  Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass.

Authors:  Steven C Campbell; Andrew C Novick; Arie Belldegrun; Michael L Blute; George K Chow; Ithaar H Derweesh; Martha M Faraday; Jihad H Kaouk; Raymond J Leveillee; Surena F Matin; Paul Russo; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

3.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives.

Authors:  P S Romano; L L Roos; J G Jollis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve.

Authors:  Phillip M Pierorazio; Hiten D Patel; Tom Feng; Jithin Yohannan; Elias S Hyams; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a long-term prospective comparison.

Authors:  A K Hemal; A Kumar; R Kumar; P Wadhwa; A Seth; N P Gupta
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Saad A Mir; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Joshua P Sleeper; Yair Lotan
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors.

Authors:  Inderbir S Gill; Louis R Kavoussi; Brian R Lane; Michael L Blute; Denise Babineau; J Roberto Colombo; Igor Frank; Sompol Permpongkosol; Christopher J Weight; Jihad H Kaouk; Michael W Kattan; Andrew C Novick
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of pathological T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: a 5-year survival rate.

Authors:  Sompol Permpongkosol; Herman S Bagga; Frederico R Romero; Myrna Sroka; Thomas W Jarrett; Louis R Kavoussi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: the new gold standard surgical treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Saadettin Yilmaz Eskicorapci; Dogu Teber; Michael Schulze; Mutlu Ates; Christian Stock; Jens J Rassweiler
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2007-04-09
View more
  4 in total

1.  A special section on selected papers from the 4th Hamlyn Symposium on Medical Robotics, 2011.

Authors:  Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-03

2.  Minimally invasive robotic versus conventional open living donor kidney transplantation.

Authors:  Ulrich Pein; Matthias Girndt; Silke Markau; Annekathrin Fritz; Alberto Breda; Michael Stöckle; Nasreldin Mohammed; Felix Kawan; Andre Schumann; Paolo Fornara; Karl Weigand
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Diffusion of robotics into clinical practice in the United States: process, patient safety, learning curves, and the public health.

Authors:  Hossein S Mirheydar; J Kellogg Parsons
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-12-29       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Expenditures and Utilization Following Minimally Invasive vs Open Nephrectomy.

Authors:  Kennedy E Okhawere; Gediwon Milky; I-Fan Shih; Yanli Li; Ketan K Badani
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-09-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.