Literature DB >> 27766551

Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children's hospitals.

William E Bennett1, Benjamin M Whittam2, Konrad M Szymanski2, Richard C Rink2, Mark P Cain2, Aaron E Carroll3.   

Abstract

The objective of this study is to determine the cost and charge differences between patients undergoing open vs. robotic pyeloplasty. This is a retrospective analysis of the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database in patients undergoing pyeloplasty between 2004 and 2013 conducted in large pediatric children's hospitals in the United States which contribute to PHIS. The participants included all pediatric patients undergoing pyeloplasty at these institutions. We assessed RCC-based cost, charge details, length of stay, and the presence of complications, and compared them between open and robotic cases. When PHIS data were compared to matched local patients, all but five were perfectly matched by medical record number, demographics, and date of procedure. When we compared open vs. robotic cases in 18 institutions that commonly performed robotic cases, there was a similar age distribution, robotic cases had shorter length of stay (2.2 v, 1.6 days, p < 0.001), similar rates of surgical complications (open 4.5 %, robotic 3.6 %, p = 0.50), and robotic cases were more expensive by US $3991 (p < 0.001). OR charges and anesthesia charges accounted for the majority of the cost difference between open vs. robotic cases. There was no association between patient age or chronological year and the mean cost difference between open vs. robotic cases. Robotic pyeloplasty is more expensive, but has a lower (although non-significant) rate of complications and a significantly shorter length of stay. Charges for OR and anesthesia time dominate the cost difference; so efforts to reduce these specific costs should be the focus of future cost-containment efforts.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost; Laparoscopic pyeloplasty; Pyeloplasty; Robotic pyeloplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27766551     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0645-1

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-01-25       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Daniel P Casella; Janelle A Fox; Francis X Schneck; Glenn M Cannon; Michael C Ost
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Furan Wang; Yinghua Xu; Hongji Zhong
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 1.612

4.  Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Giorgio Gandaglia; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Paul L Nguyen; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Firas Abdollah; Karim Chamie; Jonathan L Wright; Patricia A Ganz; Maxine Sun
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children.

Authors:  David S Yee; Allan M Shanberg; Barry P Duel; Esequiel Rodriguez; Louis Eichel; Deepak Rajpoot
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory Survey.

Authors:  Drew A Freilich; Frank J Penna; Caleb P Nelson; Alan B Retik; Hiep T Nguyen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Assessing quality using administrative data.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients.

Authors:  M Francesca Monn; Clinton D Bahler; Eric B Schneider; Benjamin M Whittam; Rosalia Misseri; Richard C Rink; Chandru P Sundaram
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Briony K Varda; Emilie K Johnson; Curtis Clark; Benjamin I Chung; Caleb P Nelson; Steven L Chang
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  5 in total

1.  Instituting robotic pediatric urologic surgery in the Canadian healthcare system: Evaluating the feasibility and outcomes of robot-assisted pyeloplasty and ureteric reimplantation.

Authors:  Noah Stern; Peter Wang; Sumit Dave
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants.

Authors:  William R Boysen; Mohan S Gundeti
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 1.827

3.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty with the use of the Contour™ stent: description of the technique and analysis of outcomes after the first 30 cases.

Authors:  Franco Gaboardi; Guglielmo Mantica; Salvatore Smelzo; Giovannalberto Pini; Davide De Marchi; Giovanni Passaretti; Giuseppe Saitta; Lorenzo Rigatti; Nazareno Suardi
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2019-01-04

4.  The Financial Burden of Setting up a Pediatric Robotic Surgery Program.

Authors:  Eugen Sorin Boia; Vlad Laurentiu David
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 2.430

Review 5.  Robotic stone surgery - Current state and future prospects: A systematic review.

Authors:  Philippe F Müller; Daniel Schlager; Simon Hein; Christian Bach; Arkadiusz Miernik; Dominik S Schoeb
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2017-11-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.