Cost comparison of open and robotic partial nephrectomy using a short postoperative pathway

Last Resort from Nursing Shortage? Comparative Cost Analysis of Open vs. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomies with a Focus on the Costs of Nursing Care

Despite perioperative advantages, robot-assisted surgery is associated with high costs. However, the lower morbidity of robotic surgery could lead to a lower nursing workload and cost savings. In this comparative cost analysis of open retroperitoneal versus robot-assisted transperitoneal partial nephrectomies (PN), these possible cost savings, including other cost factors, were quantified. Therefore, patient, tumor characteristics, and surgical results of all PN within two years at a tertiary referral center were retrospectively analyzed. The nursing effort was quantified by the local nursing staff regulation and INPULS^® intensive care and performance-recording system. Out of 259 procedures, 76.4% were performed robotically. After propensity score matching, the median total nursing time (2407.8 vs. 1126.8 min, p < 0.001) and daily nursing effort (245.7 vs. 222.6 min, p = 0.025) were significantly lower after robotic surgery. This resulted in mean savings of EUR 186.48 in nursing costs per robotic case, in addition to savings of EUR 61.76 due to less frequent administrations of erythrocyte concentrates. These savings did not amortize the higher material costs for the robotic system, causing additional expenses of EUR 1311.98 per case. To conclude, the nursing effort after a robotic partial nephrectomy was significantly lower compared to open surgery; however, this previously unnoticed savings mechanism alone could not amortize the overall increased costs.

Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Expenditures and Utilization Following Minimally Invasive vs Open Nephrectomy

IMPORTANCE

Given the widespread adoption and clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery approaches (MIS) in partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN), assessment of long-term cost implications is relevant.

OBJECTIVE

To compare health care utilization and expenditures within 1 year after MIS and open surgery (OS).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted using a US commercial claims database between 2013 and 2018. A total of 5104 patients aged 18 to 64 years who underwent PN or RN for kidney cancer and were continuously insured for 180 days before and 365 days after surgery were identified. An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed to examine differences in costs and use of health care services.

EXPOSURES

Surgical approach (MIS or OS).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes assessed included 1-year total health care expenditure, health care utilizations, and estimated days missed from work.

RESULTS

Of the 5104 patients, 2639 had PN (2008 MIS vs 631 OS) and 2465 had RN (1816 MIS vs 649 OS) and most were male (PN: 1657 [62.8%]; RN: 399 [63.1%]) and between 55 and 64 years of age (PN: 1034 [51.3%]; RN: 320 [55.7%]). Patients who underwent MIS had lower index hospital length of stay compared with OS (mean [95% CI] for PN: 2.45 [2.37-2.53] vs 3.78 [3.60-3.97] days; P < .001; for RN: 2.82 [2.73-2.91] vs 4.62 [4.41-4.83] days; P < .001), and lower index expenditure for RN ($28 999 [$28 243-$29 796] vs $31 977 [$30 729-$33 329]; P < .001). For PN, index expenditure was lower for OS than MIS (mean [95% CI], $27 480 [$26 263-$28 753] vs $30 380 [$29614-$31 167]; P < .001). Patients with MIS had lower 1-year postdischarge readmission rate (PN: 15.1% vs 21.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82; P < .001; RN: 15.6% vs 18.9%; OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-1.00; P = .05), and fewer hospital outpatient visits (mean [95% CI] for PN: 4.69 [4.48-4.90] vs 5.25 [4.84-5.66]; P = .01; RN: 5.50 [5.21-5.80] vs 6.71 [6.12-7.30]; P < .001) than those with OS. For RN, MIS was associated with 1.47 fewer missed workdays (95% CI, 0.57-2.38 days; P = .001). The reduction in health care use in MIS was associated with lower or similar total cumulative expenditures compared with OS (mean difference [95% CI] for PN: $331 [-$3250 to $3912]; P = .85; for RN: -$11 265 [-$17 065 to -$5465]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, MIS was associated with lower or similar total cumulative expenditure than OS in the period 1 year after discharge from the index surgery. These findings suggest that downstream expenditures and resource utilization should be considered when evaluating surgical approach for nephrectomy.

Open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary studies

OBJECTIVES

To compare perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RaPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN).

METHODS

Systematically search through PubMed, Embase, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies was performed to April 11, 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted for studies comparing RaPN and OPN. Confounding variables were assessed by meta-regression or subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

This study included 34 studies with 60 808 patients. Meta-analysis revealed less blood loss, less transfusion, longer operative time, less postoperative complications, lower readmission rate, shorter length of stay, and less estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline in RaPN groups. The superiority of RaPN in blood loss was attenuated with highly complex renal masses. The superiority of RaPN in intraoperative complications was strengthened with renal hilar control. The advantage of RaPN in surgical margin was increased in patient with body mass index (BMI) < 28.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OPN, RaPN provided lower morbidities and better renal function preservation.

The comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has been widely used worldwide, to determine whether RAPN is a safe and effective alternative to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) via the comparison of RANP and OPN.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed within the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase updated on 30 September 2015. Summary data with their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects or fixed effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also evaluated.

Results

A total of 16 comparative studies including 3024 cases were used for this meta-analysis. There are no significant differences in the demographic characteristic between the two groups, but the age was lower and the tumor size was smaller for the RAPN group. RAPN had a longer operative time and warm ischemia time but which showed less estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and perioperative complications. No differences existed in the margin status, the change of glomerular filtration rate, transfusion rate, and conversion rate between the two groups. There was no significant publication bias.

Conclusions

RAPN offered a lower rate of perioperative complications, less estimated blood loss, and shorter length of hospital stay than OPN, suggesting that RAPN can be an effective alternative to OPN. Well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials will be helpful in validating our findings.

Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy without using ureteral stent: a single center experience

OBJECTIVE

To share our results of robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) we performed without using ureteral stent in a single center from Turkey.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medical records of consecutive 45 patients (34 men and 11 women) who underwent RAPN for kidney lesions between March 2011 and December 2014 were retrieved, and evaluated. All the procedures were performed by a transperitoneal approach without using ureteral stent prior to surgery. Renal artery clamping was used in all cases and intraoperative ultrasonography was used in 2 cases.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing RAPN had a mean tumor size of 4.42 cm (2-8) and a mean renal nephrometry score of 5.82 (4-11). The mean estimated blood loss was 250 mL (150-450 ml) and the mean operative time was 195 minutes (150-300). There was no statistical difference between the preoperative and postoperative serum creatinine levels at the first follow-up visit (0.9 vs. 0.95, p=0.087). Surgical margin positivity was not detected in any patient, and the mean surgical margin distance was calculated as 0.4 mm (0.2-10). In only 1 patient disease recurrence was detected at the 21(st) month of the the follow-up period, and no distant metastases was reported in our patients at a mean follow-up of 10 months (3-36 mos). Our complication rate was 11.1% and according to the Clavien system complications were as; grade 2 (3 patients), grade 3a (1 patient) and grade 3b (1 patient).

CONCLUSION

With appropriately selected patients and adequate surgical experience, RAPN performed without using ureteral stent is a safe and feasible method for localized renal tumors.

[Cost comparison of open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in treatment of renal tumor]

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy rapidly took on among urologists, even though studies showing its superiority over other techniques are still scarce and its costs hard to evaluate, especially in the French medical system.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost overrun of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy compared to that of open partial nephrectomy.

EQUIPMENT AND METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2013, 77 patients underwent a partial nephrectomy, 46 of which by robot-assisted laparoscopy and the remaining 31 by lombotomy. The two groups were similar in composition. Economic data regarding the staff, the consumables and the premises involved have been analyzed.

RESULTS

Costs are significantly higher in the NPR group (9253.21 euros vs. 7448.42 euros) due to higher consumable expenses as well as the costs pertaining to the amortization and maintenance of the robot. Yet, that difference tends to diminish as the duration of the experiment increases. No significant difference was found in warm ischemia times, operation duration and renal function a month after the operation. On the other hand, patients from the NPR group spent a significantly smaller amount of time in recovery room (159 minutes vs. 205 minutes, P=0.004), presented fewer complications and were discharged faster (6.1 days vs. 8.1 days, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

To be profitable for the hospital in the French GHS system, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy must take place in a complex where at least 300 robot-assisted interventions are performed annually, in the framework of a hospitalization lasting four days or less, the use of a single needle holder and no systematic use of a haemostatic agent.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of the Use of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopy in Surgery Compared with Open or Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robot assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy to assist in surgical procedures, has high capital and operating costs. Systematically assembled evidence demonstrating its clinical and cost effectiveness would be helpful for its adoption by decision makers.

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery compared with relevant alternatives. Methods and results of identified studies were assessed to identify the deficiencies in evidence and areas for further research.

METHODS

Studies reporting both costs and outcomes for comparisons of RAL with laparoscopy and/or open surgery were systematically identified. Searches were conducted in February 2015 on MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED. Quality of the included studies was assessed against a standard checklist for economic analyses. Length of hospital stay and operating time (determinants of cost), cost of intervention, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were extracted. To aid comparison, costs were converted into a common currency and price year (2014 US dollars).

RESULTS

Forty-seven eligible studies were identified (full economic evaluation n = 6 and cost analysis n = 41). Economic models were used in 11 (23%) studies. Only three studies used a model considered representative of the disease and clinical pathway with a time-horizon allowing capture of relevant differences in outcomes across strategies. The cost of RAL varied substantially between uses, ranging from US$7011 for hysterectomy to over US$30,000 for radical cystectomy. The majority of estimates were between US$15,000 and US$25,000 per person. In part this difference is explained by the difference between studies in which costs were included. It was also identified to have higher costs than the alternatives it was compared against. Incremental cost per QALY for RAL radical prostatectomy was US$28,801-$31,763 over a 10-year period assuming 200 cases per annum.

CONCLUSION

The clinical evidence available for RAL overall and used within included studies is limited. RAL surgery costs were consistently higher than open and laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, in adopting the robotic technology decision makers need to take into account the cost effectiveness within their own systems. Economic models generated and published for radical prostatectomy and hysterectomy may be adapted to other health systems if the care pathway is similar to provide locally relevant data.