Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Casey Seideman, Joshua P. Sleeper, Yair Lotan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction is now the standard of care at many institutions. The objective of this study is to compare costs associated with robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RP) vs laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP). Materials and Methods: A decision analysis model was developed to compare costs of each procedure based on hospital-related cost centers. A literature search was performed to identify nonoverlapping studies with outcomes for RP and LP. Weighted means were calculated for operative time and length of stay. Cost data were obtained from our institution. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of changing variables on the cost-effectiveness of RP. Results: Eight studies were identified with 181 and 145 patients undergoing RP or LP, respectively. Operative times were 211 minutes for RP and 224 minutes for LP. Hospital stays were shorter for RP at 1.54 days compared with 1.98 days for LP. Mean direct costs were higher for RP at $10,635 vs $9,065 for LP. The largest difference was in fixed surgical supply costs per case at $1357 for RP and $406 for LP. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that RP would be cost effective if performed in less than 96 minutes. Even if RP was performed on an outpatient basis or more than 1000 cases/year, however, LP would still be cost superior. Two-way analyses showed areas where RP could be more cost-effective than LP. Conclusions: RP is associated with higher cost compared with LP, predominately because of the cost of the robot and surgical supply costs. Decreasing operative time and equipment costs may result in RP being more cost-effective than LP. Shorter hospital stay alone, however, is insufficient to allow RP to be cost-effective. One would need to demonstrate tangible advantages to the robot to justify the added costs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1044-1048
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume26
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Costs and Cost Analysis
Operative Time
Length of Stay
Decision Support Techniques
Hospital Costs
Standard of Care
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Outpatients
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. / Seideman, Casey; Sleeper, Joshua P.; Lotan, Yair.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 26, No. 8, 01.08.2012, p. 1044-1048.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Seideman, Casey ; Sleeper, Joshua P. ; Lotan, Yair. / Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. In: Journal of Endourology. 2012 ; Vol. 26, No. 8. pp. 1044-1048.
@article{20d9c0bfd0c74464b877407992323a00,
title = "Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty",
abstract = "Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction is now the standard of care at many institutions. The objective of this study is to compare costs associated with robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RP) vs laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP). Materials and Methods: A decision analysis model was developed to compare costs of each procedure based on hospital-related cost centers. A literature search was performed to identify nonoverlapping studies with outcomes for RP and LP. Weighted means were calculated for operative time and length of stay. Cost data were obtained from our institution. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of changing variables on the cost-effectiveness of RP. Results: Eight studies were identified with 181 and 145 patients undergoing RP or LP, respectively. Operative times were 211 minutes for RP and 224 minutes for LP. Hospital stays were shorter for RP at 1.54 days compared with 1.98 days for LP. Mean direct costs were higher for RP at $10,635 vs $9,065 for LP. The largest difference was in fixed surgical supply costs per case at $1357 for RP and $406 for LP. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that RP would be cost effective if performed in less than 96 minutes. Even if RP was performed on an outpatient basis or more than 1000 cases/year, however, LP would still be cost superior. Two-way analyses showed areas where RP could be more cost-effective than LP. Conclusions: RP is associated with higher cost compared with LP, predominately because of the cost of the robot and surgical supply costs. Decreasing operative time and equipment costs may result in RP being more cost-effective than LP. Shorter hospital stay alone, however, is insufficient to allow RP to be cost-effective. One would need to demonstrate tangible advantages to the robot to justify the added costs.",
author = "Casey Seideman and Sleeper, {Joshua P.} and Yair Lotan",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2012.0026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "1044--1048",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty

AU - Seideman, Casey

AU - Sleeper, Joshua P.

AU - Lotan, Yair

PY - 2012/8/1

Y1 - 2012/8/1

N2 - Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction is now the standard of care at many institutions. The objective of this study is to compare costs associated with robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RP) vs laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP). Materials and Methods: A decision analysis model was developed to compare costs of each procedure based on hospital-related cost centers. A literature search was performed to identify nonoverlapping studies with outcomes for RP and LP. Weighted means were calculated for operative time and length of stay. Cost data were obtained from our institution. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of changing variables on the cost-effectiveness of RP. Results: Eight studies were identified with 181 and 145 patients undergoing RP or LP, respectively. Operative times were 211 minutes for RP and 224 minutes for LP. Hospital stays were shorter for RP at 1.54 days compared with 1.98 days for LP. Mean direct costs were higher for RP at $10,635 vs $9,065 for LP. The largest difference was in fixed surgical supply costs per case at $1357 for RP and $406 for LP. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that RP would be cost effective if performed in less than 96 minutes. Even if RP was performed on an outpatient basis or more than 1000 cases/year, however, LP would still be cost superior. Two-way analyses showed areas where RP could be more cost-effective than LP. Conclusions: RP is associated with higher cost compared with LP, predominately because of the cost of the robot and surgical supply costs. Decreasing operative time and equipment costs may result in RP being more cost-effective than LP. Shorter hospital stay alone, however, is insufficient to allow RP to be cost-effective. One would need to demonstrate tangible advantages to the robot to justify the added costs.

AB - Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction is now the standard of care at many institutions. The objective of this study is to compare costs associated with robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RP) vs laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP). Materials and Methods: A decision analysis model was developed to compare costs of each procedure based on hospital-related cost centers. A literature search was performed to identify nonoverlapping studies with outcomes for RP and LP. Weighted means were calculated for operative time and length of stay. Cost data were obtained from our institution. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of changing variables on the cost-effectiveness of RP. Results: Eight studies were identified with 181 and 145 patients undergoing RP or LP, respectively. Operative times were 211 minutes for RP and 224 minutes for LP. Hospital stays were shorter for RP at 1.54 days compared with 1.98 days for LP. Mean direct costs were higher for RP at $10,635 vs $9,065 for LP. The largest difference was in fixed surgical supply costs per case at $1357 for RP and $406 for LP. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that RP would be cost effective if performed in less than 96 minutes. Even if RP was performed on an outpatient basis or more than 1000 cases/year, however, LP would still be cost superior. Two-way analyses showed areas where RP could be more cost-effective than LP. Conclusions: RP is associated with higher cost compared with LP, predominately because of the cost of the robot and surgical supply costs. Decreasing operative time and equipment costs may result in RP being more cost-effective than LP. Shorter hospital stay alone, however, is insufficient to allow RP to be cost-effective. One would need to demonstrate tangible advantages to the robot to justify the added costs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864938456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864938456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2012.0026

DO - 10.1089/end.2012.0026

M3 - Article

C2 - 22494052

AN - SCOPUS:84864938456

VL - 26

SP - 1044

EP - 1048

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 8

ER -