Melanie P Subramanian1, Jingxia Liu2, William C Chapman3, Margaret A Olsen2, Yan Yan2, Ying Liu2, Tara R Semenkovich4, Bryan F Meyers4, Varun Puri4, Benjamin D Kozower4. 1. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: m.p.subramanian@email.wustl.edu. 2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 3. Department of General Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 4. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive lobectomy is associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay. However, there have been few published analyses using recent, population-level data to compare clinical outcomes and cost by surgical approach, inclusive of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and hospitalization costs among patients undergoing open, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and RATS lobectomy. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent elective lobectomy in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State Inpatient Database (2008 to 2014). Hierarchical logistic and linear regression models were used to compare in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and index hospitalization costs among cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 15,038 patients, of whom 8501 (56.5%), 4608 (30.7%), and 1929 (12.8%) underwent open, VATS, and RATS lobectomy, respectively. Robotic-assisted lobectomies comprised less than 1% of total lobectomy volume in 2008, and grew to 25% of lobectomy volume by 2014. Both VATS and RATS lobectomies were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality compared to thoracotomy (VATS odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.94; RATS odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.96; P = .016). After adjusting for patient age, sex, income, comorbidities, and hospital teaching status, VATS lobectomy was 2% less expensive (P = .007) and robotic-assisted lobectomy was 13% more expensive (P < .001) than the open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive approaches were associated to improved clinical outcomes compared with open lobectomy. However, only robotic-assisted lobectomy has had rapid growth in utilization. Despite additional cost, RATS lobectomy appears to provide a viable minimally invasive alternative for general thoracic procedures.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive lobectomy is associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay. However, there have been few published analyses using recent, population-level data to compare clinical outcomes and cost by surgical approach, inclusive of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and hospitalization costs among patients undergoing open, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and RATS lobectomy. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent elective lobectomy in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State Inpatient Database (2008 to 2014). Hierarchical logistic and linear regression models were used to compare in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and index hospitalization costs among cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 15,038 patients, of whom 8501 (56.5%), 4608 (30.7%), and 1929 (12.8%) underwent open, VATS, and RATS lobectomy, respectively. Robotic-assisted lobectomies comprised less than 1% of total lobectomy volume in 2008, and grew to 25% of lobectomy volume by 2014. Both VATS and RATS lobectomies were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality compared to thoracotomy (VATS odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.94; RATS odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.96; P = .016). After adjusting for patient age, sex, income, comorbidities, and hospital teaching status, VATS lobectomy was 2% less expensive (P = .007) and robotic-assisted lobectomy was 13% more expensive (P < .001) than the open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive approaches were associated to improved clinical outcomes compared with open lobectomy. However, only robotic-assisted lobectomy has had rapid growth in utilization. Despite additional cost, RATS lobectomy appears to provide a viable minimally invasive alternative for general thoracic procedures.
Authors: Subroto Paul; Art Sedrakyan; Ya-Lin Chiu; Abu Nasar; Jeffrey L Port; Paul C Lee; Brendon M Stiles; Nasser K Altorki Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-07-22 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Manraj N Kaur; Feng Xie; Andrea Shiwcharan; Lisa Patterson; Yaron Shargall; Christian Finley; Colin Schieman; Terry Dalimonte; Christine Fahim; Waël C Hanna Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Hao-Xian Yang; Kaitlin M Woo; Camelia S Sima; Manjit S Bains; Prasad S Adusumilli; James Huang; David J Finley; Nabil P Rizk; Valerie W Rusch; David R Jones; Bernard J Park Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Chukwumere E Nwogu; Jonathan D'Cunha; Herbert Pang; Lin Gu; Xiaofei Wang; William G Richards; Linda J Veit; Todd L Demmy; David J Sugarbaker; Leslie J Kohman; Scott J Swanson Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Varun Puri; Henning A Gaissert; David W Wormuth; Eric L Grogan; William R Burfeind; Andrew C Chang; Christopher W Seder; Felix G Fernandez; Lisa Brown; Mitchell J Magee; Andrzej S Kosinski; Daniel P Raymond; Stephen R Broderick; Robert J Welsh; Malcolm M DeCamp; Farhood Farjah; Melanie A Edwards; Benjamin D Kozower Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael Kent; Thomas Wang; Richard Whyte; Thomas Curran; Raja Flores; Sidhu Gangadharan Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Brian E Louie; Jennifer L Wilson; Sunghee Kim; Robert J Cerfolio; Bernard J Park; Alexander S Farivar; Eric Vallières; Ralph W Aye; William R Burfeind; Mark I Block Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Brendan T Heiden; Daniel B Eaton; Su-Hsin Chang; Yan Yan; Martin W Schoen; Mayank R Patel; Daniel Kreisel; Ruben G Nava; Bryan F Meyers; Benjamin D Kozower; Varun Puri Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Brendan T Heiden; Emmanuel Tetteh; Keenan J Robbins; Rachel G Tabak; Ruben G Nava; Gary F Marklin; Daniel Kreisel; Bryan F Meyers; Benjamin D Kozower; Virginia R McKay; Varun Puri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 5.102
Authors: Alfonso Fiorelli; Stefano Forte; Francesco Paolo Caronia; Francesco Ferrigno; Mario Santini; René Horsleben Petersen; Wentao Fang Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Michael A Mederos; Michael J de Virgilio; Rivfka Shenoy; Linda Ye; Paul A Toste; Selene S Mak; Marika S Booth; Meron M Begashaw; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Paul G Shekelle; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Mark D Girgis Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Ji Hyeon Park; Samina Park; Chang Hyun Kang; Bub Se Na; So Young Bae; Kwon Joong Na; Hyun Joo Lee; In Kyu Park; Young Tae Kim Journal: J Chest Surg Date: 2022-02-05