Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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):251–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yee DS et al (2006) Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urol 67(3):599–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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):1037–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hu JC et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 66(4):666–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sukumar S et al (2014) Minimally invasive vs open pyeloplasty in children: the differential effect of procedure volume on operative outcomes. Urol 84(1):180–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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):704–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Monn MF et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urol 81(6):1336–1341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Casella DP et al (2013) Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 189(3):1083–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):1663–1667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Varda BK et al (2014) National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 191(4):1090–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Iezzoni LI (1997) Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 127((8_Part_2)):666–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study did not receive any specific funding. We thank the Department of Urology, Section of Pediatric Urology at Indiana University School of Medicine for access to the Pediatric Urology research database for the validation portion of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William E. Bennett Jr..

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Drs. Bennett, Whittam, Szymanski, Rink, Cain, and Carroll all declare that they have no conflict of interest to report.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bennett, W.E., Whittam, B.M., Szymanski, K.M. et al. Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children’s hospitals. J Robotic Surg 11, 201–206 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0645-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0645-1

Keywords

Navigation