Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 2/2017

26.07.2016 | Original Article

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

verfasst von: Antonio Pellegrino, Gianluca Raffaello Damiani, Giorgio Fachechi, Silvia Corso, Cecilia Pirovano, Claudia Trio, Mario Villa, Daniela Turoli, Aly Youssef

Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 122:778–786CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 122:778–786CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMed Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Tapper AM, Hannola M, Zeitlin R, Isojärvi J, Sintonen H, Ikonen TS (2014) A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 177:1–10CrossRefPubMed Tapper AM, Hannola M, Zeitlin R, Isojärvi J, Sintonen H, Ikonen TS (2014) A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 177:1–10CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Shepherd JP, Kantartzis KL, Ahn KH, Bonidie MJ, Lee T (2015) Cost analysis when open surgeons perform minimally invasive hysterectomy. JSLS 19(1):e2015.00027CrossRef Shepherd JP, Kantartzis KL, Ahn KH, Bonidie MJ, Lee T (2015) Cost analysis when open surgeons perform minimally invasive hysterectomy. JSLS 19(1):e2015.00027CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Koenker R (2005) Quantile regression. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRef Koenker R (2005) Quantile regression. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen J, Vargas-Bustamante A, Mortensen K, Thomas SB (2014) Using quantile regression to examine health care expenditures during the great recession. Health Serv Res 49(2):705–730CrossRefPubMed Chen J, Vargas-Bustamante A, Mortensen K, Thomas SB (2014) Using quantile regression to examine health care expenditures during the great recession. Health Serv Res 49(2):705–730CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Brummer T, Harkki P, Heikinheimo O (2011) Muuttuva kohdunpoisto[[n]]]The changing hysterectomy. Duodecim 127:1823–1825 Brummer T, Harkki P, Heikinheimo O (2011) Muuttuva kohdunpoisto[[n]]]The changing hysterectomy. Duodecim 127:1823–1825
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Pakarinen P, Toma´s E (2011) Robotti gynekologisessa kirurgiassa (Use of robots in gynaecological surgery). Duodecim 127:1864–1871PubMed Pakarinen P, Toma´s E (2011) Robotti gynekologisessa kirurgiassa (Use of robots in gynaecological surgery). Duodecim 127:1864–1871PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:92–96CrossRefPubMed Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:92–96CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Dennis T, Mendonc¸a C, Narducci F et al (2012) Study of surplus cost of robotic assistance for radical assistance for radical hysterectomy, versus laparotomy and standard laparoscopy. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 40:77–83CrossRefPubMed Dennis T, Mendonc¸a C, Narducci F et al (2012) Study of surplus cost of robotic assistance for radical assistance for radical hysterectomy, versus laparotomy and standard laparoscopy. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 40:77–83CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMed Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR (2009) Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 13:364–369PubMedPubMedCentral Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR (2009) Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 13:364–369PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–289CrossRefPubMed Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–289CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Medical Advisory Secretariat (2010) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 10(27):1–118 Medical Advisory Secretariat (2010) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 10(27):1–118
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Rogo-Gupta LJ, Lewin SN, Kim JH, Burke WM, Sun X, Herzog TJ et al (2010) The effect of surgeon volume on outcomes and resource use for vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 116:1341–1347CrossRefPubMed Rogo-Gupta LJ, Lewin SN, Kim JH, Burke WM, Sun X, Herzog TJ et al (2010) The effect of surgeon volume on outcomes and resource use for vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 116:1341–1347CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Wallenstein MR, Ananth CV, Kim JH, Burke WM, Hershman DL, Lewin SN et al (2012) Effect of surgical volume on outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol 119:709–716CrossRefPubMed Wallenstein MR, Ananth CV, Kim JH, Burke WM, Hershman DL, Lewin SN et al (2012) Effect of surgical volume on outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol 119:709–716CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright JD, Hershman DL, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Lewin SN et al (2012) Influence of surgical volume on outcome for laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19:948–958CrossRefPubMed Wright JD, Hershman DL, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Lewin SN et al (2012) Influence of surgical volume on outcome for laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19:948–958CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright JD, Lewin SN, Deutsch I, Burke WM, Sun X, Herzog TJ (2011) Effect of surgical volume on morbidity and mortality of abdominal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 117:1051–1059CrossRefPubMed Wright JD, Lewin SN, Deutsch I, Burke WM, Sun X, Herzog TJ (2011) Effect of surgical volume on morbidity and mortality of abdominal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 117:1051–1059CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Reynolds RK, Advincula AP (2006) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 191:555–560CrossRefPubMed Reynolds RK, Advincula AP (2006) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 191:555–560CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Fiorentino RP, Zepeda MA, Goldstein BH, John CR, Rettenmaier MA (2006) Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13:60–63CrossRefPubMed Fiorentino RP, Zepeda MA, Goldstein BH, John CR, Rettenmaier MA (2006) Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13:60–63CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Chong GO, Lee YH, Hong DG, Cho YL, Park IS, Lee YS (2013) Robot versus laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a comparison of the intraoperative and perioperative results of a single surgeon’s initial experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer 23(6):1145–1149CrossRefPubMed Chong GO, Lee YH, Hong DG, Cho YL, Park IS, Lee YS (2013) Robot versus laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a comparison of the intraoperative and perioperative results of a single surgeon’s initial experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer 23(6):1145–1149CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMed Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnet JC et al (2010) Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116:685–693CrossRef Barnet JC et al (2010) Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116:685–693CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N et al (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:604–611CrossRefPubMed Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N et al (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:604–611CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Cost analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy vs open approach performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center
verfasst von
Antonio Pellegrino
Gianluca Raffaello Damiani
Giorgio Fachechi
Silvia Corso
Cecilia Pirovano
Claudia Trio
Mario Villa
Daniela Turoli
Aly Youssef
Publikationsdatum
26.07.2016
Verlag
Springer London
Erschienen in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0625-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2017

Journal of Robotic Surgery 2/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.