Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs “Non-Robotic” Transhiatal Esophagectomy

View through CrossRef
Introduction This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to “non-robotic” THE (ie, “open” and laparoscopic). Methods With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against “non-robotic” approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student’s t-test, and Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Results 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent “non-robotic” approach; 4 were “open” and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes ( P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL ( P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days ( P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs “non-robotic” THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) ( P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs “non-robotic” THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) ( P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs “non-robotic” THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) ( P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of “non-robotic” operations. Conclusions Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.
Title: Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs “Non-Robotic” Transhiatal Esophagectomy
Description:
Introduction This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to “non-robotic” THE (ie, “open” and laparoscopic).
Methods With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE.
We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE.
To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against “non-robotic” approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student’s t-test, and Fisher’s exact test.
Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.
05.
Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).
Results 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent “non-robotic” approach; 4 were “open” and 11 were laparoscopic.
79 patients had adenocarcinoma.
Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.
8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.
0) minutes ( P = 0.
0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.
1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.
7) mL ( P = 0.
0001).
Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.
8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.
6) days ( P = 0.
76).
16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more.
Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.
8) vs “non-robotic” THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.
5) ( P = 0.
31).
Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.
8) vs “non-robotic” THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.
2) ( P = 0.
47).
Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.
7) vs “non-robotic” THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.
1) ( P = 0.
41).
15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of “non-robotic” operations.
Conclusions Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.
The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss.
More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures.
Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE.
Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Related Results

Tổng quan về cắt thực quản hiện đại
Tổng quan về cắt thực quản hiện đại
Tóm tắt Mục tiêu: Trình bày tổng quan về cắt thực quản thời hiện đại. Năm 1913, Franz John Torek (1861-1938) người Đức làm việc tại bệnh viện Lenox Hill, Newyork City, là người ...
Prognostic factors influencing morbidity and mortality in esophageal carcinoma
Prognostic factors influencing morbidity and mortality in esophageal carcinoma
PURPOSE: In 1980, operative mortality for esophageal resection was 29%. Over the last 15 years, technical and critical care improvements contributed to the reduction of postoperati...
Robotic resection for esophageal cancer
Robotic resection for esophageal cancer
Summary Background In the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, complete tumor resection is the most important factor and determines long-term su...
596. MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL AND GASTRO-ESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION TUMORS. A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE
596. MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL AND GASTRO-ESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION TUMORS. A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE
Abstract Esophagectomy carries high rates of post-operative morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy was introduced more than 20 years ago offering ...

Back to Top