Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children’s hospitals

被引:19
作者
Bennett W.E., Jr. [1 ]
Whittam B.M. [2 ]
Szymanski K.M. [2 ]
Rink R.C. [2 ]
Cain M.P. [2 ]
Carroll A.E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Pediatrics, Section of Children’s Health Services Research and Pediatric and Adolescent Comparative Effectiveness Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, 705 Riley Hospital Dr. ROC 4210, Indianapolis, 46202, IN
[2] Department of Urological Surgery, Section of Pediatric Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
关键词
Cost; Laparoscopic pyeloplasty; Pyeloplasty; Robotic pyeloplasty;
D O I
10.1007/s11701-016-0645-1
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The objective of this study is to determine the cost and charge differences between patients undergoing open vs. robotic pyeloplasty. This is a retrospective analysis of the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database in patients undergoing pyeloplasty between 2004 and 2013 conducted in large pediatric children’s hospitals in the United States which contribute to PHIS. The participants included all pediatric patients undergoing pyeloplasty at these institutions. We assessed RCC-based cost, charge details, length of stay, and the presence of complications, and compared them between open and robotic cases. When PHIS data were compared to matched local patients, all but five were perfectly matched by medical record number, demographics, and date of procedure. When we compared open vs. robotic cases in 18 institutions that commonly performed robotic cases, there was a similar age distribution, robotic cases had shorter length of stay (2.2 v, 1.6 days, p < 0.001), similar rates of surgical complications (open 4.5 %, robotic 3.6 %, p = 0.50), and robotic cases were more expensive by US $3991 (p < 0.001). OR charges and anesthesia charges accounted for the majority of the cost difference between open vs. robotic cases. There was no association between patient age or chronological year and the mean cost difference between open vs. robotic cases. Robotic pyeloplasty is more expensive, but has a lower (although non-significant) rate of complications and a significantly shorter length of stay. Charges for OR and anesthesia time dominate the cost difference; so efforts to reduce these specific costs should be the focus of future cost-containment efforts. © 2016, Springer-Verlag London.
引用
收藏
页码:201 / 206
页数:5
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
Wang F., Xu Y., Zhong H., Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, Scand J Urol, 47, 4, pp. 251-264, (2013)
[2]  
Yee D.S., Et al., Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children, Urol, 67, 3, pp. 599-602, (2006)
[3]  
Ficarra V., Et al., Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies, Eur Urol, 55, 5, pp. 1037-1063, (2009)
[4]  
Hu J.C., Et al., Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control, Eur Urol, 66, 4, pp. 666-672, (2014)
[5]  
Sukumar S., Et al., Minimally invasive vs open pyeloplasty in children: the differential effect of procedure volume on operative outcomes, Urol, 84, 1, pp. 180-184, (2014)
[6]  
Freilich D.A., Et al., Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified glasgow children’s benefit inventory survey, J Urol, 183, 2, pp. 704-708, (2010)
[7]  
Monn M.F., Et al., Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients, Urol, 81, 6, pp. 1336-1341, (2013)
[8]  
Casella D.P., Et al., Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty, J Urol, 189, 3, pp. 1083-1086, (2013)
[9]  
Behan J.W., Et al., Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty, J Urol, 186, pp. 1663-1667, (2011)
[10]  
Varda B.K., Et al., National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty, J Urol, 191, 4, pp. 1090-1096, (2014)