National analysis of cost disparities in robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic abdominal operations.

Mar 27, 2023

Experts: Ayesha P Ng,Yas Sanaiha,Syed Shahyan Bakhtiyar,Shayan Ebrahimian,Corynn Branche,Peyman Benharash

Although the use of robotic-assisted surgery continues to expand, the cost-effectiveness of this platform remains unclear. The present study aimed to compare hospitalization costs and clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted surgery and laparoscopic approaches for major abdominal operations.
All adults receiving minimally invasive gastrectomy, cholecystectomy, colectomy (right, left, transverse, sigmoid), ventral hernia repair, hysterectomy, and abdominoperineal resection were identified in the 2012 to 2019 National Inpatient Sample. Records with concurrent operations were excluded. Multivariable linear and logistic regressions were developed to examine the association of the operative approach with costs, length of stay, and complications. An interaction term between the year and operative approach was used to analyze cost differences over time.
Of an estimated 1,124,450 patients, 75.8% had laparoscopic surgery, and 24.2% had robotic-assisted surgery. Compared to laparoscopic, patients with robotic-assisted operations were younger and more commonly privately insured. The average hospitalization cost for laparoscopic cases was $16,000 ± 14,800 and robotic-assisted cases was $18,300 ± 13,900 (P < .001). Regardless of procedure type, all robotic-assisted operations had higher costs compared to laparoscopic operations. Risk-adjusted trend analysis revealed that the discrepancy in costs between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery persisted and widened over time from $1,600 in 2012 to $2,600 in 2019. Compared to laparoscopic procedures, robotic procedures had a 2.2% reduction in complications (9.4 vs 11.6%, P < .001) and a 0.7-day decrement in the length of stay (95% confidence interval -0.8 to -0.7).
Disparities in costs between robotic and laparoscopic abdominal operations have persisted over time. Given the modest decrement in adverse outcomes, further investigation into the clinical benefits of robotic surgery is warranted to justify its greater costs.

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Author

admin

View all posts

ABOUT THE EXPERTS

Ayesha P Ng,Yas Sanaiha,Syed Shahyan Bakhtiyar,Shayan Ebrahimian,Corynn Branche,Peyman Benharash

Ayesha P Ng

Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA. Electronic address: http://www.twitter.com/Ng_Ayesha.

Yas Sanaiha

Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA; Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA.

Syed Shahyan Bakhtiyar

Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA; Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA; Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, CO.

Shayan Ebrahimian

Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA.

Corynn Branche

Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA.

Peyman Benharash

Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA; Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA. Electronic address: pbenharash@mednet.ucla.edu.