Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Cost Analysis of Pediatric Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty

2012; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 189; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.259

1527-3792

Daniel P. Casella, Janelle Fox, Francis X. Schneck, Glenn M. Cannon, Michael C. Ost,

Congenital gastrointestinal and neural anomalies

No AccessJournal of UrologyPediatric Urology1 Mar 2013Cost Analysis of Pediatric Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Daniel P. Casella, Janelle A. Fox, Francis X. Schneck, Glenn M. Cannon, and Michael C. Ost Daniel P. CasellaDaniel P. Casella , Janelle A. FoxJanelle A. Fox , Francis X. SchneckFrancis X. Schneck , Glenn M. CannonGlenn M. Cannon , and Michael C. OstMichael C. Ost View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.259AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: An increasing percentage of pediatric pyeloplasties are being performed with assistance of the da Vinci® Surgical System. A review of the recent literature shows decreased operative times and length of hospital stays when robotic procedures are performed, although there are few published data comparing the cost of pediatric robotic and pure laparoscopic pyeloplasty. We reviewed a representative sample of pyeloplasties performed at our institution and performed a cost analysis. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified 23 robot-assisted and 23 laparoscopic pyeloplasties performed at our institution between August 2008 and April 2012. Total cost was calculated from direct and indirect costs provided by our billing department. Results: Robotic procedures were shorter than pure laparoscopic procedures (200 vs 265 minutes, p <0.001) but there was no significant difference in the total cost of the 2 procedures ($15,337 vs $16,067, p <0.46). When compared to laparoscopic cases, subgroup analysis demonstrated decreased operative times (140 vs 265 minutes, p <0.00001) and total cost ($11,949 vs $16,067, p <0.0001) in robotic cases where stents were placed in an antegrade fashion. Conclusions: With widespread use the cost of robotic instrumentation may decrease, and experience may further shorten operative times. However, it currently remains to be seen whether robotic technology will become a cost-effective replacement for pure laparoscopy in the management of pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction. References 1 : Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol2009; 56: 848. Google Scholar 2 : Radical prostatectomy: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques. Can J Urol2006; 13: 56. Google Scholar 3 : The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol2004; 172: 1431. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol2011; 25: 447. Google Scholar 5 : Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol2010; 183: 505. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology2011; 78: 813. Google Scholar 7 : Cost-analysis comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RC) vs open RC. BJU Int2011; 108: 976. Google Scholar 8 : Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol2005; 19: 327. Google Scholar 9 : A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg2006; 243: 486. Google Scholar 10 : A comparative direct cost analysis of pediatric urologic robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery: could robot-assisted surgery be less expensive?. J Endourol2012; 26: 871. Google Scholar 11 : Antegrade versus retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol2008; 22: 671. Google Scholar 12 : Antegrade stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty: feasibility of the technique and time required for stent insertion. Surg Endosc2009; 23: 1831. Google Scholar 13 : Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty?. J Urol2004; 171: 1440. Link, Google Scholar 14 : Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol2005; 174: 1440. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol2006; 175: 683. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a single center experience. J Endourol2012; 26: 249. Google Scholar 17 : Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology2006; 67: 599. Google Scholar 18 : Pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty. J Endourol2011; 25: 179. Google Scholar Department of Pediatric Urology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byGundeti M (2016) What is the Best We Have to Offer?Journal of Urology, VOL. 197, NO. 3 Part 1, (543-544), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017.Varda B, Johnson E, Clark C, Chung B, Nelson C and Chang S (2018) National Trends of Perioperative Outcomes and Costs for Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic Pediatric PyeloplastyJournal of Urology, VOL. 191, NO. 4, (1090-1096), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2014.Yang D, Monn M, Bahler C and Sundaram C (2018) Does Robotic Assistance Confer an Economic Benefit during Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy?Journal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 3, (671-676), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2014.Baskin L (2018) This Month in Pediatric UrologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 3, (789-790), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2013.Dangle P, Kearns J, Anderson B and Gundeti M (2018) Outcomes of Infants Undergoing Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Compared to Open RepairJournal of Urology, VOL. 190, NO. 6, (2221-2227), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2013. Volume 189Issue 3March 2013Page: 1083-1086 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsurologic surgical proceduresroboticslaparoscopykidney pelvisAcknowledgmentsAlan Korey, Kimberly Miller and James Graziano aided in our understanding of the costing process.MetricsAuthor Information Daniel P. Casella More articles by this author Janelle A. Fox More articles by this author Francis X. Schneck More articles by this author Glenn M. Cannon More articles by this author Michael C. Ost More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...