Felix Preisser1,2,3,4, Sebastiano Nazzani5,6,7, Elio Mazzone5,6,8,9, Sophie Knipper10,11, Marco Bandini5,6,8,9, Zhe Tian5, Alexander Haese10, Fred Saad5,6, Kevin C Zorn5,6, Francesco Montorsi8,9, Shahrokh F Shariat12, Markus Graefen10, Derya Tilki10,11, Pierre I Karakiewicz5,6. 1. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada. felixpreisser@gmx.de. 2. Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CR-CHUM) and Institut du Cancer de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada. felixpreisser@gmx.de. 3. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. felixpreisser@gmx.de. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. felixpreisser@gmx.de. 5. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada. 6. Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CR-CHUM) and Institut du Cancer de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada. 7. Academic Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 8. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 9. Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 10. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 11. Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 12. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotically assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become the most frequently used surgical approach for patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previous studies reported higher total hospital charges (THCs) for RARP than open RP (ORP). We hypothesized that based on increasing RARP surgical expertise, differences in THCs between RARP and ORP should have decreased or even disappeared in the United States in most contemporary years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the National Inpatient Sample database (2008-2015), we identified patients who underwent RARP or ORP. Multivariable linear regression models with adjustment for clustering were used to test for differences in THCs. Subgroup analyses focused on geographical regions, defined as West, Midwest, South and Northeast. RESULTS: Of 83,693 RP patients, 51,363 (61.4%) underwent RARP. RARP rates increased from 13.1 to 81.5% (p = 0.04). Overall, median THCs were $11,898 vs. $10,162 (p < 0.001) for RARP vs. ORP, respectively. After adjustment for complications, length of stay and clustering, RARP was associated with higher THCs ($3124 more for each RARP, p < 0.001). Additional charges for RARP did not change over time (p = 0.3). However, additional charges for RARP were highest in the West ($4610, p < 0.001), followed by the Midwest ($3278, p < 0.001), the South ($2906, p < 0.001) and the Northeast ($2216, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RARP rates have increased exponentially from 13.1 to over 80%. Similar rates were identified across all four geographical regions. RARP THCs exceeded those of ORP. Finally, important regional differences in RARP THCs were identified and persisted even after most detailed adjustment for population differences.
BACKGROUND: Robotically assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become the most frequently used surgical approach for patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previous studies reported higher total hospital charges (THCs) for RARP than open RP (ORP). We hypothesized that based on increasing RARP surgical expertise, differences in THCs between RARP and ORP should have decreased or even disappeared in the United States in most contemporary years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the National Inpatient Sample database (2008-2015), we identified patients who underwent RARP or ORP. Multivariable linear regression models with adjustment for clustering were used to test for differences in THCs. Subgroup analyses focused on geographical regions, defined as West, Midwest, South and Northeast. RESULTS: Of 83,693 RP patients, 51,363 (61.4%) underwent RARP. RARP rates increased from 13.1 to 81.5% (p = 0.04). Overall, median THCs were $11,898 vs. $10,162 (p < 0.001) for RARP vs. ORP, respectively. After adjustment for complications, length of stay and clustering, RARP was associated with higher THCs ($3124 more for each RARP, p < 0.001). Additional charges for RARP did not change over time (p = 0.3). However, additional charges for RARP were highest in the West ($4610, p < 0.001), followed by the Midwest ($3278, p < 0.001), the South ($2906, p < 0.001) and the Northeast ($2216, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RARP rates have increased exponentially from 13.1 to over 80%. Similar rates were identified across all four geographical regions. RARP THCs exceeded those of ORP. Finally, important regional differences in RARP THCs were identified and persisted even after most detailed adjustment for population differences.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hospital charges; National inpatient sample; Prostatectomy; Regions; Robotic-assisted
Authors: Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Jarred C Matchett; Benjamin J Davies; Stephen V Jackman; Ronald L Hrebinko; Joel B Nelson Journal: Urology Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Channa A Amarasekera; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; Nathanael D Hevelone; Keith J Kowalczyk; Jim C Hu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hua-yin Yu; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Keith J Kowalczyk; Paul L Nguyen; Toni K Choueiri; Adam S Kibel; Jim C Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Maxine Sun; Simon P Kim; Jesse Sammon; Keith J Kowalczyk; Ariella A Friedman; Shyam Sukumar; Praful Ravi; Fred Muhletaler; Piyush K Agarwal; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jim C Hu; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Christian Bolenz; Stephen J Freedland; Brent K Hollenbeck; Yair Lotan; William T Lowrance; Joel B Nelson; Jim C Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Simon P Kim; Nilay D Shah; R Jeffrey Karnes; Christopher J Weight; Nathan D Shippee; Leona C Han; Stephen A Boorjian; Marc C Smaldone; Igor Frank; Matthew T Gettman; Matthew K Tollefson; R Houston Thompson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Benedikt Hoeh; Rocco Simone Flammia; Lukas Hohenhorst; Gabriele Sorce; Francesco Chierigo; Andrea Panunzio; Zhe Tian; Fred Saad; Michele Gallucci; Alberto Briganti; Carlo Terrone; Shahrokh F Shariat; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki; Alessandro Antonelli; Luis A Kluth; Philipp Mandel; Felix K H Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Weibin Hou; Bingzhi Wang; Lei Zhou; Lan Li; Chao Li; Peng Yuan; Wei Ouyang; Hanyu Yao; Jin Huang; Kun Yao; Long Wang Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-09-28