Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao The Journal of Urolo...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
The Journal of Urology
Article . 2012 . Peer-reviewed
License: Elsevier TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Robot-Assisted Versus Open Sacrocolpopexy: A Cost-Minimization Analysis

Authors: Christopher S, Elliott; Michael H, Hsieh; Eric R, Sokol; Craig V, Comiter; Christopher K, Payne; Bertha, Chen;

Robot-Assisted Versus Open Sacrocolpopexy: A Cost-Minimization Analysis

Abstract

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is considered a standard of care operation for apical vaginal vault prolapse repair. Using outcomes at our center we evaluated whether the robotic approach to sacrocolpopexy is as cost-effective as the open approach.After obtaining institutional review board approval we performed cost-minimization analysis in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent sacrocolpopexy at our institution between 2006 and 2010. Threshold values, that is model variable values at which the most cost effective approach crosses over to an alternative approach, were determined by testing model variables over realistic ranges using sensitivity analysis. Hospital billing data were also evaluated to confirm our findings.Operative time was similar for robotic and open surgery (226 vs 221 minutes) but postoperative length of stay differed significantly (1.0 vs 3.3 days, p <0.001). Base case analysis revealed an overall 10% cost savings for robot-assisted vs open sacrocolpopexy ($10,178 vs $11,307). Tornado analysis suggested that the number of institutional robotic cases done annually, length of stay and cost per hospitalization day in the postoperative period were the largest drivers of cost. Analysis of our hospital billing data showed a similar trend with robotic surgery costing 4.2% less than open surgery.A robot-assisted approach to sacrocolpopexy can be equally or less costly than an open approach. This depends on a sufficient institutional robotic case volume and a shorter postoperative stay for patients who undergo the robot-assisted procedure.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Costs and Cost Analysis, Humans, Female, Robotics, Middle Aged, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Aged, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    68
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
68
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 1%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!