777 COMPARATIVE COST-ANALYSIS OF ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY AND OPEN PROSTATECTOMY

摘要

You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Robotics/Laparoscopy1 Apr 2011777 COMPARATIVE COST-ANALYSIS OF ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY AND OPEN PROSTATECTOMY Jeffrey Tomaszewski, Benjamin Davies, Stephen Jackman, Ronald Hrebinko, and Joel Nelson Jeffrey TomaszewskiJeffrey Tomaszewski Pittsburgh, PA , Benjamin DaviesBenjamin Davies Pittsburgh, PA , Stephen JackmanStephen Jackman Pittsburgh, PA , Ronald HrebinkoRonald Hrebinko Pittsburgh, PA , and Joel NelsonJoel Nelson Pittsburgh, PA View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.1816AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Radical prostatectomy accounts for approximately one-half of the $1.7 billion cost of prostate cancer treatment. Utilization of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has increased rapidly. The cost efficacy of RALP remains undetermined. Our objective was to perform a comparative cost-analysis of RALP and open radical prostatectomy (RRP). METHODS We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing RALP (n=25) or RRP (n=55) by one of four surgeons at a single institution over a 3 month period. Hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, hospital charges, reimbursement, and direct and indirect hospital costs were analyzed and compared. Ratio of costs-to-charges (RCC) rates was applied to each charge amount to calculate costs. Detailed cost information was obtained according to charge origin. RESULTS Mean LOS between patients undergoing RALP (1.2 Â ± 0.5 days) and RRP (1.6 Â ± 0.6 days) was comparable (p>0.05). Mean OR time was 48% longer in patients undergoing RALP (277.5 Â ± 97 minutes) compared to RRP (187 Â ± 86 minutes). Mean total costs for RALP exceeded the total costs for RRP by 71% ($13,992 versus $8,180; p<0.05). Most of the difference was due to surgical supply and operating room costs ($11,425 RALP versus $4,054 RRP; p<0.05). Total nursing costs were significantly greater for RRP than for RALP ($2,240 versus $834; p<0.05). 36% of the total costs associated with robotic prostatectomy were related to the robotic technique ($2000 direct, $3000 indirect). The ancillary, cardiology, imaging, administrative, laboratory and pharmacy costs were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS In this single institution analysis, total actual costs associated with RALP were significantly greater than costs for RRP. Higher operating room costs account for the increased cost of RALP. These data require validation among a larger cohort. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e313 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jeffrey Tomaszewski Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Benjamin Davies Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Stephen Jackman Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Ronald Hrebinko Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Joel Nelson Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...