We have located links that may give you full text access.
The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample.
Surgical Endoscopy 2019 July
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app