Literature DB >> 28695441

Health care cost consequences of using robot technology for hysterectomy: a register-based study of consecutive patients during 2006-2013.

Karin Rosenkilde Laursen1, Vibe Bolvig Hyldgård2,3, Pernille Tine Jensen4, Rikke Søgaard1,5.   

Abstract

The objective of this study is to examine the costs attributable to robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy from a broad healthcare sector perspective in a register-based longitudinal study. The population in this study were 7670 consecutive women undergoing hysterectomy between January 2006 and August 2013 in public hospitals in Denmark. The interventions in the study were total and radical hysterectomy performed robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH), total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), or open abdominal hysterectomy (OAH). Service use in the healthcare sector was evaluated 1 year before to 1 year after the surgery. Tariffs of the activity-based remuneration system and the diagnosis-related grouping case-mix system were used for valuation of primary and secondary care, respectively. Costs attributable to RALH were estimated using a difference-in-difference analytical approach and adjusted using multivariate linear regression. The main outcome measure was costs attributable to OAH, TLH, and RALH. For benign conditions RALH generated cost savings of € 2460 (95% CI 845; 4075) per patient compared to OAH and non-significant cost savings of € 1045 (95% CI -200; 2291) when compared with TLH. In cancer patients RALH generated cost savings of 3445 (95% CI 415; 6474) per patient when compared to OAH and increased costs of € 3345 (95% CI 2348; 4342) when compared to TLH. In cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy, RALH generated non-significant extra costs compared to OAH. Cost consequences were primarily due to differences in the use of inpatient service. There is a cost argument for using robot technology in patients with benign disease. In patients with malignant disease, the cost argument is dependent on comparator.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost analysis; Economics; Gynaecologic; Hysterectomy; Robot-assisted surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28695441     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-017-0725-x

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


  38 in total

1.  The Danish National Health Service Register.

Authors:  John Sahl Andersen; Niels De Fine Olivarius; Allan Krasnik
Journal:  Scand J Public Health       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Hysterectomy in Denmark 1977-2011: changes in rate, indications, and hospitalization.

Authors:  Rune Lykke; Jan Blaakær; Bent Ottesen; Helga Gimbel
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 2.435

6.  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

7.  What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman?

Authors:  Paola A Gehrig; Leigh A Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Lisa N Abaid; Alberto Mendivil; John F Boggess
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Implementation of robot-assisted gynecologic surgery for patients with low and high BMI in a German gynecological cancer center.

Authors:  Päivi Kannisto; Philipp Harter; Florian Heitz; Alexander Traut; Andreas du Bois; Christian Kurzeder
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 2.344

9.  Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches.

Authors:  Vanessa L Jacoby; Amy Autry; Gavin Jacobson; Robert Domush; Sanae Nakagawa; Alison Jacoby
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Total Laparoscopic and Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy for Benign Pathology during Introduction of a Robotic Program.

Authors:  Gokhan Sami Kilic; Gradie Moore; Ayman Elbatanony; Carmen Radecki; John Y Phelps; Mostafa A Borahay
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2011-10-05
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.