Literature DB >> 30931607

Contemporary National Assessment of Robot-Assisted Surgery Rates and Total Hospital Charges for Major Surgical Uro-Oncological Procedures in the United States.

Elio Mazzone1,2, Francesco A Mistretta1,3, Sophie Knipper1,4, Zhe Tian1, Alessandro Larcher2, Hugues Widmer1,5, Kevin Zorn1,5, Umberto Capitanio2, Markus Graefen4, Francesco Montorsi2, Shahrokh F Shariat6, Fred Saad1,5, Alberto Briganti2, Pierre I Karakiewicz1,5.   

Abstract

Background: The role of robot assistance is increasingly gaining importance among all major surgical uro-oncological procedures (MSUPs). However, contemporary analyses showed that total hospital charges (THCGs) related to robot-assisted procedures exceed those of open procedures. Based on increasing familiarity with robot-assisted surgery, we postulated that THCGs may have decreased over the past half-decade. Thus, we tested contemporary trends and THCGs related to robot-assisted vs nonrobot-assisted MSUPs. Materials and
Methods: Within the National Inpatient Sample database (2009-2015), we identified patients who underwent robot-assisted vs nonrobot-assisted (open or laparoscopic) MSUPs, which included radical prostatectomy (RP), radical nephrectomy (RN), partial nephrectomy (PN), and radical cystectomy (RC). Rates of robot-assisted MSUPs were evaluated using estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs) analyses. The t-test was used to examine statistically significant differences between mean THCGs according to either robot-assisted or nonrobot-assisted approach. Finally, linear regression analyses were tested for annual variation in the mean THCGs.
Results: Of 128,367 MSUPs, 47.7% were robot-assisted. Overall, robot-assisted surgery rates among MSUPs increased from 40.3% to 57.6% (EAPC: +6.3%, p < 0.001) between 2009 and 2015. The mean THCGs for robot-assisted RP, RN, PN, and RC were $13,799, $18,789, $16,574, and $33,575, respectively. The observed mean THCGs differences between robot-assisted and nonrobot-assisted MSUPs were +$1594, +$1592, and +$1829 for RP, RN, and RC, respectively (all p < 0.05). Conversely, no statistically significant difference in the mean THCGs was reported between robot-assisted and nonrobot-assisted PN (+$367, p > 0.05). Finally, the annual observed mean THCGs linearly decreased for all robot-assisted MSUPs during the study period. Conclusions: Rates of robot-assisted MSUPs exponentially increased between 2009 and 2015. Although the mean THCGs decreased in a significant manner during the study period for all MSUPs, THCGs of robot-assisted RP, RN, and RC still exceed those of their respective nonrobot-assisted counterparts. Conversely, no differences in the mean THCGs were reported between robot-assisted vs nonrobot-assisted PN.

Entities:  

Keywords:  nationwide inpatients sample; nephrectomy; radical cystectomy; radical prostatectomy; robot-assisted surgery; total hospital charges

Year:  2019        PMID: 30931607     DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0840

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  8 in total

Review 1.  The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon.

Authors:  Erika Palagonia; Elio Mazzone; Geert De Naeyer; Frederiek D'Hondt; Justin Collins; Pawel Wisz; Fijs W B Van Leeuwen; Henk Van Der Poel; Peter Schatteman; Alexandre Mottrie; Paolo Dell'Oglio
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence and robotics: a combination that is changing the operating room.

Authors:  Iulia Andras; Elio Mazzone; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Geert De Naeyer; Matthias N van Oosterom; Sergi Beato; Tessa Buckle; Shane O'Sullivan; Pim J van Leeuwen; Alexander Beulens; Nicolae Crisan; Frederiek D'Hondt; Peter Schatteman; Henk van Der Poel; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Alexandre Mottrie
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Does type of robotic platform make a difference in the final cost of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy?

Authors:  Marcio Covas Moschovas; Talia Helman; Seetharam Bhat; Marco Sandri; Travis Rogers; Jonathan Noel; Sunil Reddy; Cathy Corder; Vipul Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-01-28

4.  Late-onset Hem-o-Lok® migration into the bladder after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Takehiro Ohyama; Masaki Shimbo; Fumiyasu Endo; Kazunori Hattori
Journal:  IJU Case Rep       Date:  2021-11-11

Review 5.  Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Advancements in surgical technique and perioperative care.

Authors:  Isaac Palma-Zamora; Firas Abdollah; Craig Rogers; Wooju Jeong
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-09-27

6.  Patient surgical satisfaction after da Vinci® single-port and multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Jonathan Noël; Marcio Covas Moschovas; Marco Sandri; Seetharam Bhat; Travis Rogers; Sunil Reddy; Cathy Corder; Vipul Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-06-18

7.  Objective assessment of intraoperative skills for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): results from the ERUS Scientific and Educational Working Groups Metrics Initiative.

Authors:  Alexandre Mottrie; Elio Mazzone; Peter Wiklund; Markus Graefen; Justin W Collins; Ruben De Groote; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Stefano Puliatti; Anthony G Gallagher
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2020-12-20       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 8.  Single-Port versus Multiple-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Omar Fahmy; Usama A Fahmy; Nabil A Alhakamy; Mohd Ghani Khairul-Asri
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 4.241

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.