Single-institution Cost Comparison: Single-port Versus Multiport Robotic Prostatectomy

被引:37
作者
Lenfant, Louis [1 ,2 ]
Sawczyn, Guilherme [1 ]
Kim, Soodong [1 ]
Aminsharifi, Alireza [1 ,3 ]
Kaouk, Jihad [1 ]
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin, Glickman Urol & Kidney Inst, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
[2] Sorbonne Univ, GRC N 5, Predict Oncourol, Hop Pitie Salpetriere,AP HP,Urol, F-75013 Paris, France
[3] Shiraz Univ MedicalSci, Dept Urol, Shiraz, Iran
来源
EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS | 2021年 / 7卷 / 03期
关键词
Robotics; Laparoscopic single-site surgery; Single port; Prostatectomy; Cost analysis; Economics; LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; CANCER; OUTCOMES; CARE;
D O I
10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.010
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: In the era of efficient value-based health care, each surgical innovation should be proven to be cost-effective for the patient and the hospital administration. Objective: To compare the costs associated with robot-assisted prostatectomy using a single-port (SP) or multiport (MP) robotic platform. Design, setting, and participants: Costs for surgical care for consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer treated from November 2018?to November 2019?were item-ized and evaluated. Intervention: Patients were treated using either the SP (n = 78) or MP (n = 97) platform. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Demographics, perioperative data, an costs for surgical care of patients in both groups were analyzed. Results and limitation: The mean cost for prostatectomy was comparable between SP ($13 512?+/- $1615) and MP ($13 284?+/- $1360; p = 0.32). The main cost differences between the groups were the cost of hospitalization, which was lower in the SP group (p < 0.001), offset by the cost of disposables in the operating room, which was higher in the SP group (p < 0.001). The mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the SP group (9.84?+/- 11.3?vs 35.5?+/- 29.1?h; p < 0.001) and the proportion of patients discharged home on the day of surgery was higher in the SP group (70% vs 5%; p < 0.001). The main limitation of this study is its retrospective design. Conclusions: Overall, the costs for SP and MP prostatectomy are comparable. The higher SP cost for consumable surgical materials is offset by the lower cost associated with hospitalization, which was largely due to a shorter hospital stay after SP surgery. Patient summary: In this report, we found that implementation of the new single-port robotic platform for radical prostatectomy was not associated with higher surgical care costs compared to conventional multiport surgery. (c) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
引用
收藏
页码:532 / 536
页数:5
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] Enhanced Recovery after Urological Surgery: A Contemporary Systematic Review of Outcomes, Key Elements, and Research Needs
    Azhar, Raed A.
    Bochner, Bernard
    Catto, James
    Goh, Alvin C.
    Kelly, John
    Patel, Hiten D.
    Pruthi, Raj S.
    Thalmann, George N.
    Desai, Mihir
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 70 (01) : 176 - 187
  • [2] Costs of Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Bolenz, Christian
    Freedland, Stephen J.
    Hollenbeck, Brent K.
    Lotan, Yair
    Lowrance, William T.
    Nelson, Joel B.
    Hu, Jim C.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) : 316 - 324
  • [3] New Persistent Opioid Use After Minor and Major Surgical Procedures in US Adults
    Brummett, Chad M.
    Waljee, Jennifer F.
    Goesling, Jenna
    Moser, Stephanie
    Lin, Paul
    Englesbe, Michael J.
    Bohnert, Amy S. B.
    Kheterpal, Sachin
    Nallamothu, Brahmajee K.
    [J]. JAMA SURGERY, 2017, 152 (06)
  • [4] National trends in management of localized prostate cancer: A population based analysis 2004-2013
    Chen, Junchao
    Oromendia, Clara
    Halpern, Joshua A.
    Ballman, Karla V.
    [J]. PROSTATE, 2018, 78 (07) : 512 - 520
  • [5] Colombo Jr Jose R., 2007, Int. braz j urol., V33, P803, DOI 10.1590/S1677-55382007000600008
  • [6] Envisioning an IDEAL future for urological innovation
    Dahm, Philipp
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 117 (03) : 387 - 388
  • [7] Florence CS, 2016, MED CARE, V54, P901, DOI 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000625
  • [8] Technique for Docking and Port Placement Using a Purpose-built Robotic System (SP1098) in Human Cadaver
    Garisto, Juan D.
    Bertolo, Riccardo
    Kaouk, Jihad
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2018, 119 : 91 - 96
  • [9] No Surgical Innovation Without Evaluation Evolution and Further Development of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations
    Hirst, Allison
    Philippou, Yiannis
    Blazeby, Jane
    Campbell, Bruce
    Campbell, Marion
    Feinberg, Joshua
    Rovers, Maroeska
    Blencowe, Natalie
    Pennell, Christopher
    Quinn, Tom
    Rogers, Wendy
    Cook, Jonathan
    Kolias, Angelos G.
    Agha, Riaz
    Dahm, Philipp
    Sedrakyan, Art
    McCulloch, Peter
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2019, 269 (02) : 211 - 220
  • [10] Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and description of technique
    Kaouk, Jihad
    Valero, Rair
    Sawczyn, Guilherme
    Garisto, Juan
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 125 (01) : 182 - 189