394 Background: Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy (LPN and RPN) are increasingly common minimally invasive alternatives to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for management of renal tumors. The cost discrepancies of these approaches warrants evaluation. We compared hospital costs associated with RPN, LPN, and OPN. Methods: Variable hospital costs including operating room (OR) time, supplies, anesthesia, inpatient care, radiology, pharmacy, and laboratory charges were captured for 25 patients who underwent OPN, LPN, and RPN at our institution between 11/2008 -9/2010. Fixed costs of acquisition of a laparoscopic suite and a robotic system (including maintenance) were amortized over 7 years. We considered alternative scenarios through one-way and multi-way sensitivity analysis. Results: We found similar overall variable costs for OPN, LPN, and RPN. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that RPN and LPN are more cost effective than OPN (excluding fixed costs) if the average hospital stay is < 2 days, or OR time less is than 204 and 196 mins, respectively. By including fixed costs of equipment, RPN and LPN are always more costly than OPN. Conclusions: There was no difference among variable hospital costs of OPN, LPN, and RPN. Minimizing OR time and hospital stay reduces RPN and LPN costs to levels comparable to OPN. Inclusion of fixed costs makes LPN and RPN more expensive than OPN, but increased utilization and efficiency can decrease cost per case. [Table: see text]
Are the long-term outcomes of percutaneous ablation for clinical stage T1 renal tumors similar to those of partial nephrectomy?
