Does robotic assistance confer an economic benefit during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy?

David Y. Yang, M. Francesca Monn, Clinton Bahler, Chandru Sundaram

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose While robotic assisted radical nephrectomy is safe with outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of the pure laparoscopic approach, there is little evidence of an economic or clinical benefit. Materials and Methods From the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database we identified patients 18 years old or older who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary renal malignancy. Robotic assisted and laparoscopic techniques were noted. Patients treated with the open technique and those with evidence of metastatic disease were excluded from analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests, and the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression was done to examine factors associated with increased hospital costs and charges. Results We identified 24,312 radical nephrectomy cases for study inclusion, of which 7,787 (32%) were performed robotically. There was no demographic difference between robotic assisted and pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases. Median total charges were $47,036 vs $38,068 for robotic assisted vs laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). Median total hospital costs for robotic assisted surgery were $15,149 compared to $11,735 for laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). There was no difference in perioperative complications or the incidence of death. Compared to the laparoscopic approach robotic assistance conferred an estimated $4,565 and $11,267 increase in hospital costs and charges, respectively, when adjusted for adapted Charlson comorbidity index score, perioperative complications and length of stay (p <0.001). Conclusions Robotic assisted radical nephrectomy results in increased medical expense without improving patient morbidity. Assuming surgeon proficiency with pure laparoscopy, robotic technology should be reserved primarily for complex surgeries requiring reconstruction. Traditional laparoscopic techniques should continue to be used for routine radical nephrectomy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)671-676
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume192
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Robotics
Nephrectomy
Economics
Hospital Costs
Laparoscopy
Hospital Charges
Comorbidity
Inpatients
Linear Models
Length of Stay
Demography
Databases
Students
Technology
Morbidity
Kidney
Incidence

Keywords

  • cost-benefit analysis
  • kidney
  • laparoscopy
  • nephrectomy
  • robotics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Does robotic assistance confer an economic benefit during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy? / Yang, David Y.; Monn, M. Francesca; Bahler, Clinton; Sundaram, Chandru.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 192, No. 3, 2014, p. 671-676.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{12c8ad37d99345e883329d2f228d41f2,
title = "Does robotic assistance confer an economic benefit during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy?",
abstract = "Purpose While robotic assisted radical nephrectomy is safe with outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of the pure laparoscopic approach, there is little evidence of an economic or clinical benefit. Materials and Methods From the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database we identified patients 18 years old or older who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary renal malignancy. Robotic assisted and laparoscopic techniques were noted. Patients treated with the open technique and those with evidence of metastatic disease were excluded from analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests, and the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression was done to examine factors associated with increased hospital costs and charges. Results We identified 24,312 radical nephrectomy cases for study inclusion, of which 7,787 (32{\%}) were performed robotically. There was no demographic difference between robotic assisted and pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases. Median total charges were $47,036 vs $38,068 for robotic assisted vs laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). Median total hospital costs for robotic assisted surgery were $15,149 compared to $11,735 for laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). There was no difference in perioperative complications or the incidence of death. Compared to the laparoscopic approach robotic assistance conferred an estimated $4,565 and $11,267 increase in hospital costs and charges, respectively, when adjusted for adapted Charlson comorbidity index score, perioperative complications and length of stay (p <0.001). Conclusions Robotic assisted radical nephrectomy results in increased medical expense without improving patient morbidity. Assuming surgeon proficiency with pure laparoscopy, robotic technology should be reserved primarily for complex surgeries requiring reconstruction. Traditional laparoscopic techniques should continue to be used for routine radical nephrectomy.",
keywords = "cost-benefit analysis, kidney, laparoscopy, nephrectomy, robotics",
author = "Yang, {David Y.} and Monn, {M. Francesca} and Clinton Bahler and Chandru Sundaram",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.018",
language = "English",
volume = "192",
pages = "671--676",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does robotic assistance confer an economic benefit during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy?

AU - Yang, David Y.

AU - Monn, M. Francesca

AU - Bahler, Clinton

AU - Sundaram, Chandru

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Purpose While robotic assisted radical nephrectomy is safe with outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of the pure laparoscopic approach, there is little evidence of an economic or clinical benefit. Materials and Methods From the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database we identified patients 18 years old or older who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary renal malignancy. Robotic assisted and laparoscopic techniques were noted. Patients treated with the open technique and those with evidence of metastatic disease were excluded from analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests, and the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression was done to examine factors associated with increased hospital costs and charges. Results We identified 24,312 radical nephrectomy cases for study inclusion, of which 7,787 (32%) were performed robotically. There was no demographic difference between robotic assisted and pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases. Median total charges were $47,036 vs $38,068 for robotic assisted vs laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). Median total hospital costs for robotic assisted surgery were $15,149 compared to $11,735 for laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). There was no difference in perioperative complications or the incidence of death. Compared to the laparoscopic approach robotic assistance conferred an estimated $4,565 and $11,267 increase in hospital costs and charges, respectively, when adjusted for adapted Charlson comorbidity index score, perioperative complications and length of stay (p <0.001). Conclusions Robotic assisted radical nephrectomy results in increased medical expense without improving patient morbidity. Assuming surgeon proficiency with pure laparoscopy, robotic technology should be reserved primarily for complex surgeries requiring reconstruction. Traditional laparoscopic techniques should continue to be used for routine radical nephrectomy.

AB - Purpose While robotic assisted radical nephrectomy is safe with outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of the pure laparoscopic approach, there is little evidence of an economic or clinical benefit. Materials and Methods From the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database we identified patients 18 years old or older who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary renal malignancy. Robotic assisted and laparoscopic techniques were noted. Patients treated with the open technique and those with evidence of metastatic disease were excluded from analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests, and the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression was done to examine factors associated with increased hospital costs and charges. Results We identified 24,312 radical nephrectomy cases for study inclusion, of which 7,787 (32%) were performed robotically. There was no demographic difference between robotic assisted and pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases. Median total charges were $47,036 vs $38,068 for robotic assisted vs laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). Median total hospital costs for robotic assisted surgery were $15,149 compared to $11,735 for laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). There was no difference in perioperative complications or the incidence of death. Compared to the laparoscopic approach robotic assistance conferred an estimated $4,565 and $11,267 increase in hospital costs and charges, respectively, when adjusted for adapted Charlson comorbidity index score, perioperative complications and length of stay (p <0.001). Conclusions Robotic assisted radical nephrectomy results in increased medical expense without improving patient morbidity. Assuming surgeon proficiency with pure laparoscopy, robotic technology should be reserved primarily for complex surgeries requiring reconstruction. Traditional laparoscopic techniques should continue to be used for routine radical nephrectomy.

KW - cost-benefit analysis

KW - kidney

KW - laparoscopy

KW - nephrectomy

KW - robotics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84906074206&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84906074206&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.018

DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 24747652

AN - SCOPUS:84906074206

VL - 192

SP - 671

EP - 676

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 3

ER -