Kate McBride1,2, Daniel Steffens3,4, Christina Stanislaus5,3, Michael Solomon5,3,4, Teresa Anderson5,6, Ruban Thanigasalam5,4, Scott Leslie5,4, Paul G Bannon5,4,7. 1. RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. kate.mcbride@health.nsw.gov.au. 2. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. kate.mcbride@health.nsw.gov.au. 3. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. The Baird Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A barrier to the uptake of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to be the perceived high costs. A lack of detailed costing information has made it difficult for public hospitals in particular to determine whether use of the technology is justified. This study aims to provide a detailed description of the patient episode costs and the contribution of RAS specific costs for multiple specialties in the public sector. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive costing review of all RAS cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from August 2016 to December 2018 was completed. This included RAS cases within benign gynaecology, cardiothoracic, colorectal and urology, with the total costs described utilizing various inpatient costing data, and RAS specific implementation, maintenance and consumable costs. RESULTS: Of 211 RAS patients, substantial variation was found between specialties with the overall median cost per patient being $19,269 (Interquartile range (IQR): $15,445 to $32,199). The RAS specific costs were $8828 (46%) made up of fixed costs including $4691 (24%) implementation and $2290 (12%) maintenance, both of which are volume dependent; and $1848 (10%) RAS consumable costs. This was in the context of 37% robotic theatre utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation across surgical specialties for the cost of RAS. It is important to highlight the different cost components and drivers associated with a RAS program including its dependence on volume and how it fits within funding systems in the public sector.
BACKGROUND: A barrier to the uptake of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to be the perceived high costs. A lack of detailed costing information has made it difficult for public hospitals in particular to determine whether use of the technology is justified. This study aims to provide a detailed description of the patient episode costs and the contribution of RAS specific costs for multiple specialties in the public sector. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive costing review of all RAS cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from August 2016 to December 2018 was completed. This included RAS cases within benign gynaecology, cardiothoracic, colorectal and urology, with the total costs described utilizing various inpatient costing data, and RAS specific implementation, maintenance and consumable costs. RESULTS: Of 211 RAS patients, substantial variation was found between specialties with the overall median cost per patient being $19,269 (Interquartile range (IQR): $15,445 to $32,199). The RAS specific costs were $8828 (46%) made up of fixed costs including $4691 (24%) implementation and $2290 (12%) maintenance, both of which are volume dependent; and $1848 (10%) RAS consumable costs. This was in the context of 37% robotic theatre utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation across surgical specialties for the cost of RAS. It is important to highlight the different cost components and drivers associated with a RAS program including its dependence on volume and how it fits within funding systems in the public sector.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost analysis; Healthcare financing; Public sectors, minimally invasive surgery; Robotic-assisted surgery
Authors: Jonathan K Kam; Shamil D Cooray; Jeremy K Kam; Julian A Smith; Aubrey A Almeida Journal: Heart Lung Circ Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 2.975
Authors: Florian Rudolf Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Sam B Bhayani; Paul L Nguyen; David Penson; Jim Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marnique Basto; Niranjan Sathianathen; Luc Te Marvelde; Shane Ryan; Jeremy Goad; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Anthony J Costello; Daniel A Moon; Alexander G Heriot; Jim Butler; Declan G Murphy Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Elias S Hyams; Jeffrey K Mullins; Phillip M Pierorazio; Alan W Partin; Mohamad E Allaf; Brian R Matlaga Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: C Ramsay; R Pickard; C Robertson; A Close; L Vale; N Armstrong; D A Barocas; C G Eden; C Fraser; T Gurung; D Jenkinson; X Jia; T B Lam; G Mowatt; D E Neal; M C Robinson; J Royle; S P Rushton; P Sharma; M D F Shirley; N Soomro Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Sandra Dayaratna; Jay Goldberg; Christine Harrington; Benjamin E Leiby; Jean M McNeil Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jeremie Abitbol; Beste Kucukyazici; Sonya Brin; Susie Lau; Shannon Salvador; Agnihotram V Ramanakumar; Roy Kessous; Liron Kogan; John D Fletcher; Valerie Pare-Miron; Gilbert Liu; Walter H Gotlieb Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2022-08-04
Authors: Christopher D Roche; Gautam R Iyer; Minh H Nguyen; Sohaima Mabroora; Anthony Dome; Kareem Sakr; Rohan Pawar; Vincent Lee; Christopher C Wilson; Carmine Gentile Journal: Front Robot AI Date: 2022-01-18