Cost analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy vs open approach performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center

被引:17
|
作者
Pellegrino A. [1 ]
Damiani G.R. [1 ,2 ]
Fachechi G. [1 ]
Corso S. [1 ]
Pirovano C. [1 ]
Trio C. [1 ]
Villa M. [1 ]
Turoli D. [1 ]
Youssef A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASTT LECCO, Alessandro Manzoni Hospital, Dell’Eremo Street 11, Lecco
[2] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Bologna-Sant’orsola, Bologna
关键词
Cost analysis; Lapaprotomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic surgery;
D O I
10.1007/s11701-016-0625-5
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Despite the rapid uptake of robotic surgery, the effectiveness of robotically assisted hysterectomy (RAH) remains uncertain, due to the costs widely variable. Observed the different related costs of robotic procedures, in different countries, we performed a detailed economic analysis of the cost of RAH compared with total laparoscopic (TLH) and open hysterectomy (OH). The three surgical routes were matched according to age, BMI, and comorbidities. Hysterectomy costs were collected prospectively from September 2014 to September 2015. Direct costs were determined by examining the overall medical pathway for each type of intervention. Surgical procedure cost for RAH was €3598 compared with €912 for TLH and €1094 for OH. The cost of the robot-specific supplies was €2705 per intervention. When considering overall medical surgical care, the patient treatment average cost of a RAH was €4695 with a hospital stay (HS) of 2 days (range 2–4) compared with €2053 for TLH and €2846 for OH. The main driver of additional costs is disposable instruments of the robot, which is not compensated by the hospital room costs and by an experienced team staff. Implementation of strategies to reduce the cost of robotic instrumentation is due. No significant cost difference among the three procedures was observed; however, despite the optimal operative time, the experienced, surgeon and the lower HS, RAH resulted 2, 3 times and 1, 6 times more expensive in our institution than TLH and OH, respectively. © 2016, Springer-Verlag London.
引用
收藏
页码:115 / 121
页数:6
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [21] Minimally invasive colectomies can be performed with similar outcomes to open counterparts for colorectal cancer emergencies: a propensity score matching analysis utilizing ACS-NSQIP
    J. Chang
    E. Assouline
    K. Calugaru
    Z. Z. Gajic
    V. Doğru
    J. J. Ray
    A. Erkan
    E. Esen
    M. Grieco
    F. Remzi
    Techniques in Coloproctology, 2023, 27 : 1065 - 1071
  • [22] Minimally invasive colectomies can be performed with similar outcomes to open counterparts for colorectal cancer emergencies: a propensity score matching analysis utilizing ACS-NSQIP
    Chang, J.
    Assouline, E.
    Calugaru, K.
    Gajic, Z. Z.
    Dogru, V.
    Ray, J. J.
    Erkan, A.
    Esen, E.
    Grieco, M.
    Remzi, F.
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2023, 27 (11) : 1065 - 1071
  • [23] Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction, a minimally invasive surgical technique for mid-rectal cancers: Retrospective single-center analysis and single-surgeon experience of selected patients
    Muhammad, Shan
    Gao, YiBo
    Guan, Xu
    Tang, QingChao
    Fei, Shao
    Wang, Guiyu
    Chen, Yinggang
    Liu, Zheng
    Jiang, Zheng
    Kaur, Kavanjit
    Tatiana, Kamchedalova
    Ul Ain, Qurat
    Wang, Xishan
    He, Jie
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 50 (11)
  • [24] Oncological outcomes in minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Wong, Nicky Zhun Hong
    Yap, Dominic Wei Ting
    Ng, Sherryl Lei
    Ng, Junie Yu Ning
    James, Juanita Jaslin
    Kow, Alfred Wei Chieh
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2024, 11
  • [25] Open vs. minimally invasive sublay incisional hernia repair. Is there a risk of overtreatment? EVEREG registry analysis
    Lopez-Cano, Manuel
    Verdaguer Tremolosa, Mireia
    Hernandez Granados, Pilar
    Antonio Pereira, Jose
    CIRUGIA ESPANOLA, 2023, 101 : S46 - S53
  • [26] Minimally invasive vs. open radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: 30-day NSQIP outcomes analysis
    Joshua Hale
    Kelsey R. Landrum
    Chris Agala
    Roberto A. Vidri
    Elizabeth Gleeson
    Michael T. LeCompte
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2025, 39 (6) : 3873 - 3882
  • [27] Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A retrospective study in a single minimally invasive surgery center
    Hao, Yingxue
    Yu, Peiwu
    Qian, Feng
    Zhao, Yongliang
    Shi, Yan
    Tang, Bo
    Zeng, Dongzhu
    Zhang, Chao
    MEDICINE, 2016, 95 (25)
  • [28] A Contemporary Analysis of Ureteral Reconstruction 30-Day Morbidity Utilizing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database: Comparison of Minimally Invasive vs Open Approaches
    Hebert, Kevin J.
    Linder, Brian J.
    Gettman, Matthew T.
    Ubl, Daniel
    Habermann, Elizabeth B.
    Lyon, Timothy D.
    Ziegelmann, Matthew J.
    Viers, Boyd R.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2022, 36 (02) : 209 - 215
  • [29] Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy
    Kampers, J.
    Gerhardt, E.
    Sibbertsen, P.
    Flock, T.
    Hertel, H.
    Klapdor, R.
    Jentschke, M.
    Hillemanns, P.
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2022, 306 (02) : 295 - 314
  • [30] Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy
    J. Kampers
    E. Gerhardt
    P. Sibbertsen
    T. Flock
    H. Hertel
    R. Klapdor
    M. Jentschke
    P. Hillemanns
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2022, 306 : 295 - 314