Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 7/2019

16.10.2018

The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample

verfasst von: Zhamak Khorgami, Wei T. Li, Theresa N. Jackson, C. Anthony Howard, Guido M. Sclabas

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 7/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:790–795PubMed Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:790–795PubMed
3.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Armijo PR, Pagkratis S, Boilesen E, Tanner T, Oleynikov D (2017) Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons’ conversion: a study of trends and costs. Surg Endosc 32:2106–2113CrossRefPubMed Armijo PR, Pagkratis S, Boilesen E, Tanner T, Oleynikov D (2017) Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons’ conversion: a study of trends and costs. Surg Endosc 32:2106–2113CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg 37:2782–2790CrossRefPubMed Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg 37:2782–2790CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Roh HF, Nam SH, Kim JM (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13:e0191628CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Roh HF, Nam SH, Kim JM (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13:e0191628CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Mahida JB, Cooper JN, Herz D, Diefenbach KA, Deans KJ, Minneci PC, McLeod DJ (2015) Utilization and costs associated with robotic surgery in children. J Surg Res 199:169–176CrossRefPubMed Mahida JB, Cooper JN, Herz D, Diefenbach KA, Deans KJ, Minneci PC, McLeod DJ (2015) Utilization and costs associated with robotic surgery in children. J Surg Res 199:169–176CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Jeong IG, Khandwala YS, Kim JH, Han DH, Li S, Wang Y, Chang SL, Chung BI (2017) Association of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with perioperative outcomes and health care costs, 2003 to 2015. JAMA 318:1561–1568CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jeong IG, Khandwala YS, Kim JH, Han DH, Li S, Wang Y, Chang SL, Chung BI (2017) Association of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with perioperative outcomes and health care costs, 2003 to 2015. JAMA 318:1561–1568CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606CrossRefPubMed Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Solaini L, Bazzocchi F, Cavaliere D, Avanzolini A, Cucchetti A, Ercolani G (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32:1104–1110CrossRefPubMed Solaini L, Bazzocchi F, Cavaliere D, Avanzolini A, Cucchetti A, Ercolani G (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32:1104–1110CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Strosberg DS, Nguyen MC, Muscarella P, Narula VK (2017) A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis. Surg Endosc 31:1436–1441CrossRefPubMed Strosberg DS, Nguyen MC, Muscarella P, Narula VK (2017) A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis. Surg Endosc 31:1436–1441CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Bhama AR, Obias V, Welch KB, Vandewarker JF, Cleary RK (2016) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Surg Endosc 30:1576–1584CrossRefPubMed Bhama AR, Obias V, Welch KB, Vandewarker JF, Cleary RK (2016) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Surg Endosc 30:1576–1584CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, Scales CD Jr, Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ (2010) Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116:685–693CrossRefPubMed Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, Scales CD Jr, Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ (2010) Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116:685–693CrossRefPubMed
16.
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
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Avondstondt AM, Wallenstein M, D’Adamo CR, Ehsanipoor RM (2017) Change in cost after 5 years of experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. J Robot Surg 12:93–96CrossRefPubMed Avondstondt AM, Wallenstein M, D’Adamo CR, Ehsanipoor RM (2017) Change in cost after 5 years of experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. J Robot Surg 12:93–96CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Steinberg PL, Merguerian PA, Bihrle W, Seigne JD (2008) The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 72:1068–1072CrossRefPubMed Steinberg PL, Merguerian PA, Bihrle W, Seigne JD (2008) The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 72:1068–1072CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Bentley-Kumar K, Jackson T, Holland D, LeBlanc B, Agrawal V, Truitt MS (2016) Trauma patients: I can’t get no (patient) satisfaction? Am J Surg 212:1256–1260CrossRefPubMed Bentley-Kumar K, Jackson T, Holland D, LeBlanc B, Agrawal V, Truitt MS (2016) Trauma patients: I can’t get no (patient) satisfaction? Am J Surg 212:1256–1260CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Khorgami Z, Aminian A, Shoar S, Andalib A, Saber AA, Schauer PR, Brethauer SA, Sclabas GM (2017) Cost of bariatric surgery and factors associated with increased cost: an analysis of national inpatient sample. Surg Obes Relat Dis 13:1284–1289CrossRefPubMed Khorgami Z, Aminian A, Shoar S, Andalib A, Saber AA, Schauer PR, Brethauer SA, Sclabas GM (2017) Cost of bariatric surgery and factors associated with increased cost: an analysis of national inpatient sample. Surg Obes Relat Dis 13:1284–1289CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample
verfasst von
Zhamak Khorgami
Wei T. Li
Theresa N. Jackson
C. Anthony Howard
Guido M. Sclabas
Publikationsdatum
16.10.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6507-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 7/2019 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.