Literature DB >> 30327915

The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample.

Zhamak Khorgami1,2, Wei T Li3, Theresa N Jackson3, C Anthony Howard3, Guido M Sclabas3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) with its advantages continues to gain popularity among surgeons. This study analyzed the increased costs of RAS in common surgical procedures using the National Inpatient Sample.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the 2012-2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-NIS was performed for the following laparoscopic/robotic procedures: cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, right and left hemicolectomy, sigmoidectomy, abdominoperineal resection, and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Patients with additional concurrent procedures were excluded. Costs were compared between the laparoscopic procedures and their RAS counterparts. Total costs and charges for cholecystectomy (the most common procedure in the dataset) were compared based on the payer and characteristics of hospital (region, rural/urban, bed size, and ownership).
RESULTS: A total of 91,630 surgeries (87,965 laparoscopic, 3665 robotic) were analyzed. The average cost for the laparoscopic group was $10,227 ± $4986 versus $12,340 ± $5880 for the robotic cases (p < 0.001). The overall and percentage increases for laparoscopic versus robotic for each procedure were as follows: cholecystectomy $9618 versus $10,944 (14%), ventral hernia repair $10,739 versus $13,441 (25%), right colectomy $12,516 versus $15,027 (20%), left colectomy $14,157 versus $17,493 (24%), sigmoidectomy $13,504 versus $16,652 (23%), abdominoperineal resection $17,708 versus $19,605 (11%), and TAH $9368 versus $9923 (6%). Hysterectomy was the only procedure performed primarily using RAS and it was found to have the lowest increase in costs. Increased costs were associated with even higher increases in charges, especially in investor-owned private hospitals.
CONCLUSION: RAS is more costly when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Additional costs may be lower in centers that perform a higher volume of RAS. Further analysis of long-term outcomes (including reoperations and readmissions) is needed to better compare the life-long treatment costs for both surgical approaches.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cholecystectomy; Colectomy; Costs; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopic; Robotic surgery; Ventral hernia repair

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30327915     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6507-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  19 in total

Review 1.  Robotic surgery: a current perspective.

Authors:  Anthony R Lanfranco; Andres E Castellanos; Jaydev P Desai; William C Meyers
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Giuseppe Turchetti; Ilaria Palla; Francesca Pierotti; Alfred Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Robotic surgery: applications, limitations, and impact on surgical education.

Authors:  Bishoy Morris
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2005-09-27

4.  Change in cost after 5 years of experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Andrea M Avondstondt; Michelle Wallenstein; Christopher R D'Adamo; Robert M Ehsanipoor
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-04-24

5.  Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons' conversion: a study of trends and costs.

Authors:  Priscila R Armijo; Spyridon Pagkratis; Eugene Boilesen; Tiffany Tanner; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Leonardo Solaini; Francesca Bazzocchi; Davide Cavaliere; Andrea Avanzolini; Alessandro Cucchetti; Giorgio Ercolani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Trauma patients: I can't get no (patient) satisfaction?

Authors:  Karalyn Bentley-Kumar; Theresa Jackson; Danny Holland; Brian LeBlanc; Vaidehi Agrawal; Michael S Truitt
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 2.565

8.  Utilization and costs associated with robotic surgery in children.

Authors:  Justin B Mahida; Jennifer N Cooper; Daniel Herz; Karen A Diefenbach; Katherine J Deans; Peter C Minneci; Daryl J McLeod
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 2.192

9.  A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis.

Authors:  David S Strosberg; Michelle C Nguyen; Peter Muscarella; Vimal K Narula
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  The History of Robotics in Surgical Specialties.

Authors:  Jay Shah; Arpita Vyas; Dinesh Vyas
Journal:  Am J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-06-01
View more
  15 in total

1.  The use of da Vinci Xi and the increased surgeon's experience could change the perspective over the cost-benefit ratio of robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Desirée Gianardi; Matteo Palmeri; Luca Morelli
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-12-26

2.  Artificial Intelligence: A New Tool in Operating Room Management. Role of Machine Learning Models in Operating Room Optimization.

Authors:  Valentina Bellini; Marco Guzzon; Barbara Bigliardi; Monica Mordonini; Serena Filippelli; Elena Bignami
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 4.460

3.  Impact of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pyloroplasty on Short- and Long-term Outcomes in Patients with Gastroparesis.

Authors:  Swara Bajpai; Aimal Khan; Kristen M Rutledge; Richard D Stahl
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 4.  Robotic Surgery: At the Crossroads of a Data Explosion.

Authors:  Tejinder P Singh; Jessica Zaman; Jessica Cutler
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Does adoption of new technology increase surgical volume? The robotic inguinal hernia repair model.

Authors:  Tara M Barry; Haroon Janjua; Christopher DuCoin; Emanuel Eguia; Paul C Kuo
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-09-13

Review 6.  Review of the Standard and Advanced Screening, Staging Systems and Treatment Modalities for Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Siaw Shi Boon; Ho Yin Luk; Chuanyun Xiao; Zigui Chen; Paul Kay Sheung Chan
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Oscar A Olavarria; Karla Bernardi; Shinil K Shah; Todd D Wilson; Shuyan Wei; Claudia Pedroza; Elenir B Avritscher; Michele M Loor; Tien C Ko; Lillian S Kao; Mike K Liang
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-07-14

8.  Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures.

Authors:  Kyle H Sheetz; Jake Claflin; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-01-03

Review 9.  Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rivfka Shenoy; Michael A Mederos; Linda Ye; Selene S Mak; Meron M Begashaw; Marika S Booth; Paul G Shekelle; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Mark D Girgis
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2021-04-23

10.  Procedural and post-operative complications associated with laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yong Sheng Li; Fan Chun Meng; Jun Kai Lin
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.