Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 1/2017

01-01-2017

Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures

Authors: Rana M. Higgins, Matthew J. Frelich, Matthew E. Bosler, Jon C. Gould

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Robotic surgical systems have been used at a rapidly increasing rate in general surgery. Many of these procedures have been performed laparoscopically for years. In a surgical encounter, a significant portion of the total costs is associated with consumable supplies. Our hospital system has invested in a software program that can track the costs of consumable surgical supplies. We sought to determine the differences in cost of consumables with elective laparoscopic and robotic procedures for our health care organization.

Methods

De-identified procedural cost and equipment utilization data were collected from the Surgical Profitability Compass Procedure Cost Manager System (The Advisory Board Company, Washington, DC) for our health care system for laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and inguinal hernia between the years 2013 and 2015. Outcomes were length of stay, case duration, and supply cost. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test for continuous variables, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

The total cost of consumable surgical supplies was significantly greater for all robotic procedures. Length of stay did not differ for fundoplication or cholecystectomy. Length of stay was greater for robotic inguinal hernia repair. Case duration was similar for cholecystectomy (84.3 robotic and 75.5 min laparoscopic, p = 0.08), but significantly longer for robotic fundoplication (197.2 robotic and 162.1 min laparoscopic, p = 0.01) and inguinal hernia repair (124.0 robotic and 84.4 min laparoscopic, p = ≪0.01).

Conclusions

We found a significantly increased cost of general surgery procedures for our health care system when cases commonly performed laparoscopically are instead performed robotically. Our analysis is limited by the fact that we only included costs associated with consumable surgical supplies. The initial acquisition cost (over $1 million for robotic surgical system), depreciation, and service contract for the robotic and laparoscopic systems were not included in this analysis.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27:2253–2257CrossRefPubMed
4.
Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704CrossRefPubMed
5.
Arita NA, Nguyen MT, Nguyen DH, Berger RL, Lew DF, Suliburk JT, Askenasy EP, Kao LS, Liang MK (2015) Laparoscopic repair reduces incidence of surgical site infections for all ventral hernias. Surg Endosc 29:1769–1780CrossRefPubMed
6.
Byrne J, Saleh F, Ambrosini L, Quereshy F, Jackson TD, Okrainec A (2015) Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: a comparison of outcomes. Surg Endosc 29:2525–2532CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zapf M, Denham W, Barrera E, Butt Z, Carbray J, Wang C, Linn J, Ujiki M (2013) Patient-centered outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27:4491–4498CrossRefPubMed
8.
Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J, Azagury D, Sandler B, Hutter M, Ross S, Haas E, Brody F, Satava R (2015) SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc 29:2873–2884CrossRefPubMed
9.
Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK, Talamini MA (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–116CrossRefPubMed
10.
Szold A, Bergamaschi R, Broeders I, Dankelman J, Forgione A, Lango T, Melzer A, Mintz Y, Morales-Conde S, Rhodes M, Satava R, Tang CN, Vilallonga R (2015) European association of endoscopic surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery. Surg Endosc 29:253–288CrossRefPubMed
11.
Vidovszky TJ, Smith W, Ghosh J, Ali MR (2006) Robotic cholecystectomy: learning curve, advantages, and limitations. J Surg Res 136:172–178CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:234–238CrossRefPubMed
14.
Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Lee JY (2011) The da Vinci surgical system overcomes innate hand dominance. J Endourol 25:1385–1388CrossRefPubMed
15.
Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD, Okhunov Z, Liss MA, Perez-Lanzac A, McDougall EM, Landman J (2014) Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol 2:261–266CrossRef
16.
Curro G, Cogliandolo A, Bartolotta M, Navarra G (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26:1–5CrossRef
17.
Curro G, La Malfa G, Caizzone A, Rampulla V, Navarra G (2015) Three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparison study. Obes Surg 25:2120–2124CrossRefPubMed
18.
Feng X, Morandi A, Boehne M, Imvised T, Ure BM, Kuebler JF, Lacher M (2015) 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy improves operating time in small spaces without impact on hemodynamics and psychomental stress parameters of the surgeon. Surg Endosc 29:1231–1239CrossRefPubMed
19.
Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60:39–45CrossRefPubMed
20.
Moore LF, Wilson MR, Waine E, Masters RSW, McGrath JS, Vine SJ (2015) Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 9:67–73CrossRefPubMed
21.
McVey R, Goldenberg M, Bernardini MQ, Yasufuku K, Quereshy FA, Finelli A, Pace KT, Lee JY (2016) Baseline laparoscopic skill may predict baseline robotic skill and early robotic surgery learning curve. J Endourol (epub ahead of print)
22.
Muller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Wente MN, Bintintan VV, Koninger J, Buchler MW, Gutt CN (2007) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 21:1800–1805CrossRefPubMed
23.
Owen B, Simorov A, Siref A, Shostrom V, Oleynikov D (2014) How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc 28:1686–1690CrossRefPubMed
24.
Wormer BA, Dacey KT, Williams KB, Bradley JF III, Walters AL, Augenstein VA, Stefanidis D, Heniford BT (2014) The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start. Surg Endosc 28:767–776CrossRefPubMed
25.
Escobar Dominguez JE, Ramos MG, Seetharamaiah R, Donkor C, Rabaza J, Gonzalez A (2015) Feasibility of robotic inguinal hernia repair, a single-institution experience. Surg Endosc. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-015-4717-5 PubMed
26.
Joshi ART, Spivak J, Rubach E, Goldberg G, DeNoto G (2010) Concurrent robotic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAP) herniorrhaphy during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 6:311–314CrossRef
27.
Finley DS, Savatta D, Rodriguez E, Kopelan A, Ahlering TE (2008) Transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and inguinal herniorrhaphy. J Robot Surg 1:269–272CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Finley DS, Rodriguez E, Ahlering TE (2007) Combined inguinal hernia repair with prosthetic mesh during transperitoneal robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a 4-year experience. J Urol 178:1296–1300CrossRefPubMed
29.
Ito F, Jarrard D, Gould JC (2008) Transabdominal preperitoneal robotic inguinal hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 18:397–399CrossRefPubMed
30.
Nio D, Bemelman WA, Busch ORC, Vrouenraets BC, Gouma DJ (2004) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 18:379–382CrossRefPubMed
31.
Kornprat P, Werkgartner G, Cerwenka H, Bacher H, El-Shabrawi A, Rehak P, Mischinger HJ (2006) Prospective study comparing standard and robotically assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:216–221CrossRefPubMed
32.
Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M, Held U, Weber M, Clavien PA (2008) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg 247:987–993CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
35.
Van Gijn W, Wouters MWJM, Peeters KCMJ, Van De Velde CJH (2008) Nationwide outcome registrations to improve quality of care in rectal surgery. An inititiave of the European society of surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol 99:491–496CrossRef
36.
Govaert JA, van Bommel AC, van Dij WA, van Leersum NJ, Tollenaar RA, Wouters MW (2015) Reducing healthcare costs facilitated by surgical auditing: a systematic review. World J Surg 39:1672–1680CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Kashlan OA, Wilson TJ, Chaudhary N, Gemmette JJ, Stetler WR, Dunnick NR, Thompson G, Pandey AS (2014) Reducing costs while maintaining quality in endovascular neurosurgical procedures. J Neurosurg 121:1071–1076CrossRefPubMed
38.
Institute of Medicine (2001) Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Metadata
Title
Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures
Authors
Rana M. Higgins
Matthew J. Frelich
Matthew E. Bosler
Jon C. Gould
Publication date
01-01-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4954-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2017 Go to the issue

Video

Median arcuate ligament syndrome in athletes

OriginalPaper

GERD and acid reduction medication use following gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy

OriginalPaper

Endoloops or endostapler use in laparoscopic appendectomy for acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis

OriginalPaper

Ling classification applied in the preoperative safety and effectiveness assessment of POEM

OriginalPaper

Value of routine polysomnography in bariatric surgery

OriginalPaper

An application research on a novel internal grasper platform and magnetic anchoring guide system (MAGS) in laparoscopic surgery