Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 2/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Article

Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children’s hospitals

Authors: William E. Bennett Jr., Benjamin M. Whittam, Konrad M. Szymanski, Richard C. Rink, Mark P. Cain, Aaron E. Carroll

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this study is to determine the cost and charge differences between patients undergoing open vs. robotic pyeloplasty. This is a retrospective analysis of the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database in patients undergoing pyeloplasty between 2004 and 2013 conducted in large pediatric children’s hospitals in the United States which contribute to PHIS. The participants included all pediatric patients undergoing pyeloplasty at these institutions. We assessed RCC-based cost, charge details, length of stay, and the presence of complications, and compared them between open and robotic cases. When PHIS data were compared to matched local patients, all but five were perfectly matched by medical record number, demographics, and date of procedure. When we compared open vs. robotic cases in 18 institutions that commonly performed robotic cases, there was a similar age distribution, robotic cases had shorter length of stay (2.2 v, 1.6 days, p < 0.001), similar rates of surgical complications (open 4.5 %, robotic 3.6 %, p = 0.50), and robotic cases were more expensive by US $3991 (p < 0.001). OR charges and anesthesia charges accounted for the majority of the cost difference between open vs. robotic cases. There was no association between patient age or chronological year and the mean cost difference between open vs. robotic cases. Robotic pyeloplasty is more expensive, but has a lower (although non-significant) rate of complications and a significantly shorter length of stay. Charges for OR and anesthesia time dominate the cost difference; so efforts to reduce these specific costs should be the focus of future cost-containment efforts.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wang F, Xu Y, Zhong H (2013) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Urol 47(4):251–264CrossRefPubMed Wang F, Xu Y, Zhong H (2013) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Urol 47(4):251–264CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Yee DS et al (2006) Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urol 67(3):599–602CrossRefPubMed Yee DS et al (2006) Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urol 67(3):599–602CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Ficarra V et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55(5):1037–1063CrossRefPubMed Ficarra V et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55(5):1037–1063CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Hu JC et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 66(4):666–672CrossRefPubMed Hu JC et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 66(4):666–672CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Sukumar S et al (2014) Minimally invasive vs open pyeloplasty in children: the differential effect of procedure volume on operative outcomes. Urol 84(1):180–184CrossRefPubMed Sukumar S et al (2014) Minimally invasive vs open pyeloplasty in children: the differential effect of procedure volume on operative outcomes. Urol 84(1):180–184CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Freilich DA et al (2010) Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified glasgow children’s benefit inventory survey. J Urol 183(2):704–708CrossRefPubMed Freilich DA et al (2010) Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified glasgow children’s benefit inventory survey. J Urol 183(2):704–708CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Monn MF et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urol 81(6):1336–1341CrossRefPubMed Monn MF et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urol 81(6):1336–1341CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Casella DP et al (2013) Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 189(3):1083–1086CrossRefPubMed Casella DP et al (2013) Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 189(3):1083–1086CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Behan JW et al (2011) Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty. J Urol 186(4 Suppl):1663–1667CrossRefPubMed Behan JW et al (2011) Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty. J Urol 186(4 Suppl):1663–1667CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Varda BK et al (2014) National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 191(4):1090–1096CrossRefPubMed Varda BK et al (2014) National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 191(4):1090–1096CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Iezzoni LI (1997) Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 127((8_Part_2)):666–674CrossRefPubMed Iezzoni LI (1997) Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 127((8_Part_2)):666–674CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Shwartz M, Young DW, Siegrist R (1994) The ratio of costs to charges: how good a basis for estimating costs? Inqu J Med care Organ Provis Financ 32(v):476–481 Shwartz M, Young DW, Siegrist R (1994) The ratio of costs to charges: how good a basis for estimating costs? Inqu J Med care Organ Provis Financ 32(v):476–481
Metadata
Title
Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children’s hospitals
Authors
William E. Bennett Jr.
Benjamin M. Whittam
Konrad M. Szymanski
Richard C. Rink
Mark P. Cain
Aaron E. Carroll
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0645-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Journal of Robotic Surgery 2/2017 Go to the issue