Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 394-394
Author(s):  
Mehrdad Alemozaffar ◽  
Steven Lee Chang ◽  
Ravi Kacker ◽  
Maryellen Sun ◽  
William C DeWolf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Renal Tumors ◽  
Robotic Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Fixed Costs ◽  
Average Hospital ◽  
Open Partial Nephrectomy

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]

scholarly journals Trifecta Outcomes in Open, Laparoscopy or Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Does the Surgical Approach Matter?

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ketan Mehra ◽  
Ramanitharan Manikandan ◽  
Lalgudi Narayanan Dorairajan ◽  
Sreenivasan Sreerag ◽  
Amit Jain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Renal Tumors ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Robotic Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Open Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Important Position ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Preoperative Creatinine

This retrospective study evaluated perioperative outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and identified predictive factors of Trifecta achievement for renal tumors that underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) in a single institutional cohort. The study involved patients who underwent PN from January 2011 to July 2018. Trifecta was defined as absence of perioperative complications, no positive surgical margins, and ischemia time <30 min. Fifty-five PN procedures were reviewed: 28 OPN, 14 LPN, and 13 RAPN. OPN, LPN and RAPN had similar median tumor size (5.75, 5.25, and 5 cm), nephrometry score (7, 6, and 6), and preoperative creatinine (1.09, 1.1, and 1.1 mg/dl, respectively). Blood loss was higher for OPN (550 ml) than for LPN (400 ml) and RAPN (300 ml), P = 0.042. Drain was removed after 6 days in OPN which was higher than LPN and RAPN (4.5 and 4 days, respectively), P = 0.008. OPN, LPN, and RAPN had similar median operative time (190, 180, and 180 min, respectively), P = 0.438. Median postoperative stay for OPN, LPN, and RAPN was 5, 6.5, and 10 days, respectively. Trifecta outcomes of 73.1%, 64.3%, and 61.53% were achieved in OPN, LPN, and RAPN, respectively, P = 0.730. It was concluded that Trifecta outcomes had no significant difference among OPN, LPN, and RAPN. LPN can produce as good results as RAPN. Keeping in mind the cost-effectiveness, LPN holds an important position in developing countries where expenditure by patient is a major factor.

Comparison of open and robotic nephron sparing surgery: a single centre experience

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-35
Author(s):  
Clare R Jelley ◽  
Kurukula ASH Kurukulaarachchi ◽  
Luke Forster ◽  
Harry Bardgett ◽  
Rajindra Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Tumour Size ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Robotic Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Open Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Objective: To compare robotic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) to assess efficacy and impact of learning curve. Methods: From 2010 to 2015 159 patients had a partial nephrectomy (82 OPN and 77 RAPN). All data were collected prospectively. We compared the demographics, peri and postoperative outcomes. Results: Mean age was 60 years in both groups; 59% of patients were men. Tumour size was larger in the open group (34 mm vs 30 mm; P<0.08), but RENAL nephrometry scores greater than 6 were comparable (over 60%). Mean ischaemic time was longer in the RAPN group (18 vs 13 minutes; P<0.04) but complication rates were similar. The RAPN cohort had a reduced estimated blood loss (100 ml vs 300 ml; P<0.01) and shorter median hospital stay (2 vs 5 days; P<0.01). Only two patients in each group were margin positive. The RAPN cohort demonstrated reduced estimated blood loss and a trend towards more complex tumours with increasing learning curve. Conclusion: RAPN is superior to OPN in terms of reduced hospital stay and estimated blood loss without compromising oncological outcomes. This service can be delivered safely and effectively in a low to medium volume cancer centre; these results are similar to published figures from high volume international centres.

scholarly journals Partial Nephrectomy A Comparison between Different Modalities

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-39
Author(s):  
Ahmed Al Asker ◽  
Abdulmalik Addar ◽  
Mohammed Alghamdi ◽  
Saud Alawad ◽  
Mohammed Alharbi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Robotic Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Open Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Institutional Review

Kidney cancer, with 4% of all malignancies, is one of the most common malignancies occurring among in adults. In Saudi Arabia, kidney cancer comprises 2.3% of all cancers, and its incidence has increased by 33%. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is considered as the gold standard for T1 renal masses.In this retrospective study, we did a chart review for all patients who underwent PNs between April 2013 and February 2019. Data comprised pre-sentation, tumor size, type of procedure (open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic), and intra- and post-operative complications. Chi-square, ANOVA, and cross-tabulation were done using SPSS software. P > 0.05 was considered significant. Approval was obtained from the institutional review board of King Abdullah International Medical Research Center.In all, 69 patients were identified: 26 (37.7%) males and 43 (62.3%) females, with mean age = 54.53 ± 13.21 years; mean body mass index = 32.36 ± 7.03, and mean tumor size = 3.7 ± 1.72 cm. In terms of presentation, most patients (50, 72.4%) presented incidentally as opposed to symptomatic presentation. Of these patients, 18 (26.1%) underwent open partial nephrectomy (OPN), 29 (42%) laparoscopic partial nephrec-tomy (LPN), and 22 (31.9%) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). On comparing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) PN with OPN, we found that OPN had more blood loss and a longer hospital stay but a shorter operating room (OR) time.Results of PN irrespective of the procedure type, whether it was OPN, LPN, or RPN, were similar if performed by experienced surgeons. However, open procedures involved a higher blood loss, more operative time, and longer hospital stay when compared with minimally invasive techniques.

Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for the management of highly complex renal tumors with PADUA score ⩾10: A single center analysis.

2021 ◽  
pp. 039156032110016
Author(s):  
Francesco Chiancone ◽  
Marco Fabiano ◽  
Clemente Meccariello ◽  
Maurizio Fedelini ◽  
Francesco Persico ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Tumors ◽  
Open Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Operative Complications ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Post Operative Complications

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy (PN) for renal tumors of high surgical complexity (PADUA score ⩾10). Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 93 consecutive patients who underwent PN at our department from January 2015 to September 2019. 21 patients underwent open partial nephrectomy (OPN) (Group A) and 72 underwent laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) (Group B). All OPNs were performed with a retroperitoneal approach, while all LPNs were performed with a transperitoneal approach by a single surgical team. Post-operative complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Results: The two groups showed no difference in terms of patients’ demographics as well as tumor characteristics in all variables. Group A was found to be similar to group B in terms of operation time ( p = 0.781), conversion to radical nephrectomy ( p = 0.3485), and positive surgical margins ( p = 0.338) while estimated blood loss ( p = 0.0205), intra-operative ( p = 0.0104), and post-operative ( p = 0.0081) transfusion rates, drainage time ( p = 0.0012), pain score at post-operative day 1 (<0.0001) were significantly lower in Group B. The rate of enucleation and enucleoresection/polar resection was similar ( p = 0.1821) among the groups. Logistic regression analysis indicated that preoperative factors were not independently associated with the surgical approach. There was a statistically significant difference in complication rate (<0.0001) between the two groups even if no significant difference in terms of grade ⩾3 post-operative complications ( p = 0.3382) was detected. Discussion: LPN represents a feasible and safe approach for high complex renal tumors if performed in highly experienced laparoscopic centers. This procedure offers good intraoperative outcomes and a low rate of post-operative complications.

scholarly journals Development of a nomogram to predict achievement of trifecta outcomes after robotic partial nephrectomy for cT1-2 renal tumors

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. S125
Author(s):  
A. Brassetti ◽  
U. Anceschi ◽  
R. Bertolo ◽  
C. De Nunzio ◽  
G. Tuderti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Renal Tumors ◽  
Robotic Partial Nephrectomy

scholarly journals Tumor volume and tumor crossing of the axial renal midline predict renal function after robotic partial nephrectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haruyuki Ohsugi ◽  
Kyojiro Akiyama ◽  
Hisanori Taniguchi ◽  
Masaaki Yanishi ◽  
Motohiko Sugi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Tumor Volume ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Renal Tumors ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Robotic Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity

AbstractThere are several nephrometry scoring systems for predicting surgical complexity and potential perioperative morbidity. The R.E.N.A.L. scoring system, one of the most well-known nephrometry scoring systems, emphasizes the features on which it is based (Radius, Exophytic/endophytic, Nearness to collecting system or sinus, Anterior/posterior, and Location relative to polar lines). The ability of these nephrometry scoring systems to predict loss of renal function after robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) remains controversial. Therefore, we verified which combination of factors from nephrometry scoring systems, including tumor volume, was the most significant predictor of postoperative renal function. Patients who underwent RPN for cT1 renal tumors in our hospital were reviewed retrospectively (n = 163). The preoperative clinical data (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], comorbidities, and nephrometry scoring systems including R.E.N.A.L.) and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. We also calculated the tumor volume using the equation applied to an ellipsoid by three-dimensional computed tomography. The primary outcome was reduced eGFR, which was defined as an eGFR reduction of ≥ 20% from baseline to 6 months after RPN. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the relationships between preoperative variables and reduced eGFR. Of 163 patients, 24 (14.7%) had reduced eGFR. Multivariable analyses indicated that tumor volume (cutoff value ≥ 14.11 cm3, indicating a sphere with a diameter ≥ approximately 3 cm) and tumor crossing of the axial renal midline were independent factors associated with a reduced eGFR (odds ratio [OR] 4.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69–12.30; P = 0.003 and OR 3.50; 95% CI 1.30–9.46; P = 0.034, respectively). Our classification system using these two factors showed a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) than previous nephrometry scoring systems (AUC = 0.786 vs. 0.653–0.719), and it may provide preoperative information for counseling patients about renal function after RPN.

REDUCING THE LITERAL AND HUMAN COST OF CHILD ABUSE: IMPACT OF A NEW HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 840-848
Author(s):  
Eli H. Newberger ◽  
John J. Hagenbuch ◽  
Nancy B. Ebeling ◽  
Elizabeth Pivchik Colligan ◽  
Jane S. Sheehan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Hospital Cost ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Average Hospital Stay ◽  
Total Hospital ◽  
Average Hospital ◽  
Consultation Group ◽  
Human Cost ◽  
Hospital Management System

Social service personnel from one public and two voluntary agencies were integrated into a consultation group in an academic pediatric hospital, leading to a reduction in the actual cost of medical services and the risk of reinjury subsequent to the diagnosis of child abuse. In the 1969-1970 hospital year, 62 cases of child abuse were seen, of which 39 were hospitalized. The average hospital stay was 29 days; the average hospital cost $3,000. Total hospital costs for the 39 cases were $123,000, of which bed costs made up $95,000. There were at least three subsequent incidents of child abuse in these 39 cases, and there was one subsequent death; the reinjury rate was 10% for hospitalized cases. In September 1970 the Trauma X Group, an interdisciplinary, interagency consultation unit based in the hospital, was formed. With formal consultation and continued surveillance after discharge by the Trauma X Group, the following data were obtained from the 1970-1971 hospital year. Of 86 cases, 60 were hospitalized. The average hospital stay was 17 days; the average hospital cost $2,500. Total hospital costs for the 60 cases was $150,000, of which bed costs made up $101,000. There was one incident of reinjury and no deaths subsequent to diagnosis in these 60 cases; the reinjury rate was 1.7%. The risk of reinjury calculated from a modified life table was reduced from 8% in the year previous to the formation of the group to 7% and 2%, respectively, in the subsequent year and six-month periods, supporting the dollar-cost impression of effectiveness. Foster placement, furthermore, was infrequent and does not explain the differential impact of the Trauma X Group in the intervals under study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document