Pellegrino Antonio, Damiani Gianluca Raffaello, Fachechi Giorgio, Pirovano Cecilia, Gaetani Maria, Youssef Aly
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASTT LECCO, Alessandro Manzoni Hospital, Dell'Eremo Street 11, Lecco, Italy.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASTT LECCO, Leopoldo Mandic Hospital, Merate, Italy.
Updates Surg. 2017 Dec;69(4):517-522. doi: 10.1007/s13304-017-0462-8. Epub 2017 May 15.
The objective of this study is to perform an economic analysis and examine the influence of procedural volume of our hospital, evaluating the accounting systems of Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) in patients with cervical carcinoma, due to the costs widely variable and lack in literature. Costs were collected prospectively, from March 2010 to March 2016. Direct costs were determined by examining the overall medical pathway for each type of intervention. 52 patients with cervical carcinoma, which were matched by age, body mass index, tumor size, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, comorbidity, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histology type, and tumor grade to obtain homogeneous samples. Surgical time was similar for both the groups. RRH was associated with a significantly less (EBL) estimated blood loss (P = 0.000). The overall median length of follow-up was of 59 months. The cost of the robot-specific supplies was €2705 per intervention. When considering overall medical surgical care, the patient treatment average cost of an RRH was €5650,31 with an hospital stay (HS) of 3.58 days (SD ± 1) vs €3750.86 for TRLH, with an HS of 4.27 days (SD ± 1.79). Our results are similar to Finnish data; the costs of robot-assisted hysterectomies were 1.5 times higher than TLRH. The main drivers of additional costs are robotic disposable instruments, which are not compensated by the hospital room costs and by an experienced team staff. Implementation of strategies to reduce the cost of robotic instrumentation is due. RRH resulted less expensive than robotic simple hysterectomy for benign conditions.
本研究的目的是进行经济分析,并考察我院手术量的影响,评估机器人根治性子宫切除术(RRH)与腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(TLRH)在宫颈癌患者中的计费系统,因为成本差异很大且文献中缺乏相关内容。成本是前瞻性收集的,时间跨度为2010年3月至2016年3月。直接成本通过检查每种干预类型的整个医疗路径来确定。52例宫颈癌患者,根据年龄、体重指数、肿瘤大小、国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)分期、合并症、既往新辅助化疗、组织学类型和肿瘤分级进行匹配,以获得同质样本。两组的手术时间相似。RRH的估计失血量(EBL)显著更少(P = 0.000)。总体中位随访时间为59个月。每次干预的机器人专用耗材成本为2705欧元。在考虑整体医疗手术护理时,RRH患者的平均治疗成本为5650.31欧元,住院时间(HS)为3.58天(标准差±1),而TLRH为3750.86欧元,HS为4.27天(标准差±1.79)。我们的结果与芬兰的数据相似;机器人辅助子宫切除术的成本比TLRH高1.5倍。额外成本的主要驱动因素是机器人一次性器械,而医院病房成本和经验丰富的团队人员并不能弥补这一成本。因此需要实施降低机器人器械成本的策略。对于良性疾病,RRH的成本低于机器人单纯子宫切除术。