Raj Bhanvadia1, Caleb Ashbrook2, Aditya Bagrodia2, Yair Lotan2, Vitaly Margulis2, Solomon Woldu2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, 2001 Inwood Road, 4th Floor, WBCE3, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. Raj.bhanvadia@phhs.org. 2. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, 2001 Inwood Road, 4th Floor, WBCE3, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare perioperative outcomes and perform the first cost analysis between open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND) and Robotic-RPLND (R-RPLND) using a national all-payer inpatient care database. METHODS: Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried between 2013-2016 for primary RPLND and germ cell tumor. We compared cost, length of stay (LOS), and complications between O-RPLND and R-RPLND. Linear regression plots identified point of cost equivalence between R-RPLND and O-RPLND. A multivariable linear regression model was generated to analyze predictors of cost. RESULTS: 44 cases of R-RPLND and 319 cases of O-RPLND were identified. R-RPLND was associated with lower rate of complications (0% vs. 16.6%, p < 0.01) and shorter LOS [Median (IQR): 1.5 (1-3) days vs. 4 (3-6) days, p < 0.01]. Rates of ileus, genitourinary complications, and transfusions were lower with R-RPLND, but did not reach significance. On multivariable analysis, robotic approach independently contributed $4457, while each day of hospitalization contributed to an additional $2,431 to the overall model of cost. Linear regression plots determined point of cost equivalence between an R-RPLND staying a mean of 2 days was 4-5 days for O-RPLND, supporting the multivariable analysis. Total hospitalization cost was equivalent between R-RPLND and O-RPLND [Median (IQR): $15,681($12,735-$21,596) vs $16,718($11,799-$24,403), p = 0.48]-suggesting that the cost equivalency of R-RPLND is, at least in part, attributable to shorter LOS. CONCLUSION: While O-RPLND remains the gold standard and this study is limited by selection bias of a robotic approach to RPLND, our findings suggest primary R-RPLND may represent a cost-equivalent option with decreased hospital LOS in select cases.
PURPOSE: To compare perioperative outcomes and perform the first cost analysis between open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND) and Robotic-RPLND (R-RPLND) using a national all-payer inpatient care database. METHODS: Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried between 2013-2016 for primary RPLND and germ cell tumor. We compared cost, length of stay (LOS), and complications between O-RPLND and R-RPLND. Linear regression plots identified point of cost equivalence between R-RPLND and O-RPLND. A multivariable linear regression model was generated to analyze predictors of cost. RESULTS: 44 cases of R-RPLND and 319 cases of O-RPLND were identified. R-RPLND was associated with lower rate of complications (0% vs. 16.6%, p < 0.01) and shorter LOS [Median (IQR): 1.5 (1-3) days vs. 4 (3-6) days, p < 0.01]. Rates of ileus, genitourinary complications, and transfusions were lower with R-RPLND, but did not reach significance. On multivariable analysis, robotic approach independently contributed $4457, while each day of hospitalization contributed to an additional $2,431 to the overall model of cost. Linear regression plots determined point of cost equivalence between an R-RPLND staying a mean of 2 days was 4-5 days for O-RPLND, supporting the multivariable analysis. Total hospitalization cost was equivalent between R-RPLND and O-RPLND [Median (IQR): $15,681($12,735-$21,596) vs $16,718($11,799-$24,403), p = 0.48]-suggesting that the cost equivalency of R-RPLND is, at least in part, attributable to shorter LOS. CONCLUSION: While O-RPLND remains the gold standard and this study is limited by selection bias of a robotic approach to RPLND, our findings suggest primary R-RPLND may represent a cost-equivalent option with decreased hospital LOS in select cases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health services research; Minimally invasive surgery; Peri-operative outcomes; Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy; Testis cancer
Authors: Haidar M Abdul-Muhsin; James O L'esperance; Kimberly Fischer; Michael E Woods; James R Porter; Erik P Castle Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Shane M Pearce; Shay Golan; Michael A Gorin; Amy N Luckenbaugh; Stephen B Williams; John F Ward; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Khaled S Hafez; Alon Z Weizer; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf; Scott E Eggener Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew Stephenson; Scott E Eggener; Eric B Bass; David M Chelnick; Siamak Daneshmand; Darren Feldman; Timothy Gilligan; Jose A Karam; Bradley Leibovich; Stanley L Liauw; Timothy A Masterson; Joshua J Meeks; Phillip M Pierorazio; Ritu Sharma; Joel Sheinfeld Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 7.450