Morgan Jeffrey A, Thornton Barbara A, Peacock Joy C, Hollingsworth Karen W, Smith Craig R, Oz Mehmet C, Argenziano Michael
Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA.
J Card Surg. 2005 May-Jun;20(3):246-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8191.2005.200385.x.
While potential benefits of robotic technology include decreased morbidity and improved recovery, some have suggested a prohibitively high cost. This study was undertaken to compare actual hospital costs of robotically assisted cardiac procedures with conventional techniques.
We conducted a retrospective review of clinical and financial data of 20 patients who underwent atrial septal defect (ASD) closure and 20 patients who underwent mitral valve repair (MVr) using either robotic techniques or a conventional approach with a sternotomy. Total hospital cost (actual resource consumption) was subdivided into operative and postoperative costs.
Robotic technology did not significantly increase total hospital cost for ASD closure or MVr (p = 0.518 and p = 0.539). However, when including the initial capital investment for the robot through amortization of institutional costs, total hospital cost was increased by $3,773 for robotic ASD closure and $3,444 for robotic MVr (p = 0.021 and p = 0.004). The major driver of cost for robotic cases (operating room time) decreased over time.
Robotic technology did not significantly increase hospital cost. While the absolute cost for robotic surgery was higher than conventional techniques after taking into account the institutional cost of the robot, the major driver of cost for robotic procedures will likely continue to decrease, as the surgical team becomes increasingly familiar with robotic technology. Furthermore, other benefits, such as improvement in postoperative quality of life and more expeditious return to work may make a robotic approach cost-effective. Thus, it is possible that the benefits of robotic surgery may justify investment in this technology.
虽然机器人技术的潜在益处包括发病率降低和恢复情况改善,但一些人认为其成本高得令人望而却步。本研究旨在比较机器人辅助心脏手术与传统技术的实际医院成本。
我们对20例行房间隔缺损(ASD)封堵术的患者和20例行二尖瓣修复术(MVr)的患者的临床和财务数据进行了回顾性分析,这些患者分别采用机器人技术或传统开胸手术方法。医院总成本(实际资源消耗)分为手术成本和术后成本。
机器人技术并未显著增加ASD封堵术或MVr的医院总成本(p = 0.518和p = 0.539)。然而,当通过分摊机构成本将机器人的初始资本投资计算在内时,机器人辅助ASD封堵术的医院总成本增加了3773美元,机器人辅助MVr增加了3444美元(p = 0.021和p = 0.004)。机器人手术病例成本的主要驱动因素(手术室时间)随着时间的推移而减少。
机器人技术并未显著增加医院成本。虽然考虑到机器人的机构成本后,机器人手术的绝对成本高于传统技术,但随着手术团队对机器人技术越来越熟悉,机器人手术成本的主要驱动因素可能会继续下降。此外,其他益处,如术后生活质量的改善和更快恢复工作,可能使机器人手术方法具有成本效益。因此,机器人手术的益处可能证明对该技术的投资是合理的。