Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2015

01-12-2015 | Original Article

Cost comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus standard laparoscopic hysterectomy

Authors: Marc L. Winter, Szu-Yun Leu, David C. Lagrew Jr., Gerardo Bustillo

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess if the cost of robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy is similar to the cost of standard laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by surgeons past their initial learning curve. A retrospective chart review of all hysterectomies was performed for benign indications without concomitant major procedures at Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (OCMMC) and Saddleback Memorial Medical Center between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2013. Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomies (RTLH) and standard laparoscopic hysterectomies (LAVH and TLH) were compared. Data analyzed included only those hysterectomies performed by surgeons past their initial learning curve (minimum of 30 previous robotic cases). The primary outcome was the direct total cost of patient’s hospitalization related to hysterectomy. The secondary outcomes were estimated blood loss, surgery time, and days in hospital post-surgery. A multiple linear regression model was applied to evaluate the difference between RTLH and LAVH/TLH in hospital cost, blood loss, and surgery time, while adjusting for hospital, patient’s age, body mass index (BMI), whether or not the patient had previous abdominal/pelvic surgery, and uterine weight. The χ 2 test was applied to examine the association between hospital stay and surgery type. There were 93 hysterectomies (5 LAVH, 88 RTLH) performed at OCMMC and 90 hysterectomies (6 LAVH, 17 TLH, 67 RTLH) performed at Saddleback Memorial Medical Center. The hospitalization total cost result showed that, after adjusting for hospital, age, BMI, previous abdominal/pelvic surgery, and uterine weight, RTLH was not significantly more expensive than LAVH/TLH (mean diff. = $283.1, 95 % CI = [−569.6, 1135.9]; p = 0.51) at the 2 study hospitals. However, the cost at OCMMC was significantly higher than Saddleback Memorial Medical Center (mean diff. = $2008.7, 95 % CI = [1380.6, 2636.7]; p < 0.0001); and the cost increased significantly with uterine weight (β = 3.8, 95 % CI = [2.3, 5.3]; p < 0.0001). Further analysis showed significantly less blood loss (mean diff. = −78.5 ml, 95 % CI = [−116.8, −40.3]; p < 0.0001) and shorter surgery time (mean diff. = −21.9 min., 95 % CI = [−39.6, −4.2]; p = 0.016) for RTLH versus LAVH/TLH. There was no significant association between hospital stay and surgery type (p = 0.43). After adjusting for patient-level covariates, there was no statistically significant cost difference of performing robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus standard laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by surgeons past their initial learning curve at two community hospitals.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) (2014) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) (2014) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
2.
go back to reference Solucient Database–Truven Health Analytics (2014) Solucient Database–Truven Health Analytics (2014)
3.
go back to reference Wright JD, Anath CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Negut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMed Wright JD, Anath CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Negut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelorsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T et al (2013) A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208:368e1–368e7CrossRef Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelorsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T et al (2013) A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208:368e1–368e7CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gyencol 122:778–786CrossRef Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gyencol 122:778–786CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gyencol 120:604–611CrossRef Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gyencol 120:604–611CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sarlos G, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schar G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:92–96CrossRefPubMed Sarlos G, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schar G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:92–96CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, Shi G, Song H, Clarke J (2012) Robotic surgery for benign gynecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (2). Art. No.: CD 008978. doi: 10.1002/14651858 Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, Shi G, Song H, Clarke J (2012) Robotic surgery for benign gynecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (2). Art. No.: CD 008978. doi: 10.​1002/​14651858
9.
go back to reference Sarlos D, Kots LA (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr opin Obstet Gyencol 23:283–288CrossRef Sarlos D, Kots LA (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr opin Obstet Gyencol 23:283–288CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Paraiso MF, Jelovek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013CrossRefPubMed Paraiso MF, Jelovek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI (2012) Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS 16:519–524PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI (2012) Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS 16:519–524PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMed Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Wright JD, Ananth CV, Tergas AI, Herzog TJ, Burke WM, Lewin SN et al (2014) An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 123:1038–1048PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Wright JD, Ananth CV, Tergas AI, Herzog TJ, Burke WM, Lewin SN et al (2014) An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 123:1038–1048PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreadon U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411CrossRefPubMed Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreadon U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, Scales CD Jr, Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ (2010) Cost Comparison among robotic laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116(3):685–693CrossRefPubMed Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, Scales CD Jr, Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ (2010) Cost Comparison among robotic laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116(3):685–693CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291CrossRefPubMed Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:589–594CrossRefPubMed Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:589–594CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Lim PC, Kang E, do Park H (2011) A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 120:413–418CrossRefPubMed Lim PC, Kang E, do Park H (2011) A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 120:413–418CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Woelk JL, Casiano ER, Weaver AL, Gestout BS, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB (2013) The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 121:87–95CrossRefPubMed Woelk JL, Casiano ER, Weaver AL, Gestout BS, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB (2013) The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 121:87–95CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Martino MA, Berger EA, McFetridge JT, Shubella J, Gosciniak G, Weikszner T et al (2014) A comparison of quality measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic versus non-robotic approaches. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:389–393CrossRefPubMed Martino MA, Berger EA, McFetridge JT, Shubella J, Gosciniak G, Weikszner T et al (2014) A comparison of quality measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic versus non-robotic approaches. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:389–393CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Lonnerfors C (2015) Reynisson P and Persson J, A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy versus robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:78–86CrossRefPubMed Lonnerfors C (2015) Reynisson P and Persson J, A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy versus robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:78–86CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cost comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus standard laparoscopic hysterectomy
Authors
Marc L. Winter
Szu-Yun Leu
David C. Lagrew Jr.
Gerardo Bustillo
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0526-z

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2015 Go to the issue