• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在学术机构中,将机器人技术应用于胸科医疗实践的财务影响。

Financial impact of adapting robotics to a thoracic practice in an academic institution.

作者信息

Abbas Abbas, Bakhos Charles, Petrov Roman, Kaiser Larry

机构信息

Department of Thoracic Medicine and Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

J Thorac Dis. 2020 Feb;12(2):89-96. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.12.140.

DOI:10.21037/jtd.2019.12.140
PMID:32190358
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7061187/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the current healthcare environment there is increasing pressure to deliver high quality care to more people at less cost. Robotic assisted thoracic surgical procedures (RATS) have been shown by some to be more expensive than conventional endoscopic or open surgery. We initiated this study to assess the financial impact of RATS compared to robotic non-thoracic surgery in an academic institution.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed for all patients who underwent any robotically assisted surgical procedure at Temple University Hospital (TUH) in fiscal year 2015. Surgical volume, operative time, length of stay (LOS), case mix index (CMI), direct and indirect costs, hospital charges, surgical charges, contribution margin (CM) and net margin (NM) were collected for the thoracic surgery service in addition to other services which performed more than 20 robotic cases a year. We analyzed the data according to the following strategy: (I) financial performance for both inpatient and outpatient robotic procedures for the entire hospital; (II) compared financial data for robotic and non-robotic surgeries in the thoracic surgery division; (III) compared thoracic surgery data with the STS database for the same time period in order to calculate any potential cost saving (PCS).

RESULTS

In FY15, a total of 696 robotic procedures were performed by the various services at TUH with a mean of 58 cases each month. Although CM was highest for cardiovascular surgery, the highest NM was by thoracic surgery. Despite having the highest volume and a positive CM, the mostly outpatient urology service showed a negative NM in FY15. A CMI-adjusted comparison on 208 of the 589 robotic procedures where there was a comparable group of inpatients who had open procedures, the mean direct cost for non-robotic procedures was $6,239, 9% less than for robotic procedures. The mean total cost for non-robotic procedures was only 3.64% ($435) less than that for robotic procedures ($11,502 $11,937). When compared with the UHC expected LOS, the robotic group had a lower LOS while the non-robotic group had a higher LOS. The mean total direct costs were $3,510 less for the robotic procedures ($16,502 $20,012). When compared to similar cases reported to the STS in FY 2015, the length of stay, conversion rate, transfusion rate, post-operative complications and OR time compared favorably. Using calculations based on published data, the potential cost savings are in the 1 to 2 million dollar range compared to traditional endoscopic or open procedures reported to the STS.

CONCLUSIONS

High acuity services such as Thoracic Surgery drive higher CM per case as long as variable costs especially LOS are kept low. Procedures with lower CMI may not provide a high enough CM to offset the fixed and variable costs. Robotic surgical cases performed in the outpatient setting may incur significant losses as the reimbursement does not cover the direct costs. Hospitals should preferentially allocate robotic resources to inpatient procedures with higher CMI and work to decrease overall LOS.

摘要

背景

在当前的医疗环境中,以更低的成本为更多人提供高质量医疗服务的压力日益增大。一些研究表明,机器人辅助胸外科手术(RATS)比传统的内镜手术或开放手术成本更高。我们开展这项研究,旨在评估在一所学术机构中,RATS与机器人辅助非胸外科手术相比的财务影响。

方法

对2015财年在天普大学医院(TUH)接受任何机器人辅助手术的所有患者进行回顾性研究。除了每年开展超过20例机器人手术的其他科室外,还收集了胸外科服务的手术量、手术时间、住院时间(LOS)、病例组合指数(CMI)、直接和间接成本、医院收费、手术收费、边际贡献(CM)和净利润率(NM)。我们根据以下策略分析数据:(I)整个医院住院和门诊机器人手术的财务表现;(II)比较胸外科科室机器人手术和非机器人手术的财务数据;(III)将胸外科数据与同期的胸外科医师协会(STS)数据库进行比较,以计算任何潜在的成本节约(PCS)。

结果

2015财年,TUH各科室共进行了696例机器人手术,平均每月58例。尽管心血管外科的CM最高,但胸外科的NM最高。尽管泌尿外科手术量最大且CM为正,但在2015财年其NM为负,该科室大多为门诊手术。对589例机器人手术中的208例进行CMI调整后的比较,这些病例有一组可比的接受开放手术的住院患者,非机器人手术的平均直接成本为6239美元,比机器人手术低9%。非机器人手术的平均总成本仅比机器人手术低3.64%(435美元)(11502美元对11937美元)。与大学健康联盟(UHC)预期的LOS相比,机器人手术组的LOS较低,而非机器人手术组的LOS较高。机器人手术的平均总直接成本低3510美元(16502美元对20012美元)。与2015财年报告给STS的类似病例相比,住院时间、中转率、输血率、术后并发症和手术室时间表现良好。根据已发表的数据计算,与报告给STS的传统内镜或开放手术相比,潜在成本节约在100万至2百万美元范围内。

结论

只要可变成本特别是LOS保持在较低水平,胸外科等高难度服务每例可带来更高的CM。CMI较低的手术可能无法提供足够高的CM来抵消固定成本和可变成本。门诊进行的机器人手术病例可能会产生重大损失,因为报销费用不足以覆盖直接成本。医院应优先将机器人资源分配给CMI较高的住院手术,并努力降低总体LOS。

相似文献

1
Financial impact of adapting robotics to a thoracic practice in an academic institution.在学术机构中,将机器人技术应用于胸科医疗实践的财务影响。
J Thorac Dis. 2020 Feb;12(2):89-96. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.12.140.
2
Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system.澳大利亚公共卫生系统中机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的护理模式与健康经济分析。
BJU Int. 2016 Jun;117(6):930-9. doi: 10.1111/bju.13317. Epub 2015 Oct 1.
3
4
Robotic Single-Site and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecology: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis of a Matched Case-Control Study.妇科机器人单孔与传统腹腔镜手术:一项配对病例对照研究的临床结局与成本分析
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jul-Aug;23(5):760-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.005. Epub 2016 Mar 15.
5
Length of stay has minimal impact on the cost of hospital admission.住院时长对住院费用的影响极小。
J Am Coll Surg. 2000 Aug;191(2):123-30. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(00)00352-5.
6
Experience with 10 years of a robotic surgery program at an Academic Medical Center.在学术医疗中心开展机器人手术项目 10 年的经验。
Surg Endosc. 2022 Mar;36(3):1950-1960. doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08478-y. Epub 2021 Apr 12.
7
Vascular surgeon-hospitalist comanagement improves in-hospital mortality at the expense of increased in-hospital cost.血管外科医生与住院医师共同管理虽以增加住院费用为代价,但能降低住院死亡率。
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Mar;65(3):819-825. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.09.042. Epub 2016 Dec 14.
8
Hospital cost and clinical effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy: A propensity score-weighted comparison.机器人辅助与电视辅助和开胸肺叶切除术的医院成本和临床效果:倾向评分加权比较。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 May;157(5):2018-2026.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.12.101. Epub 2019 Jan 23.
9
Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis.机器人辅助微创手术在妇科和泌尿外科肿瘤学中的应用:一项基于证据的分析。
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(27):1-118. Epub 2010 Dec 1.
10
Financial Impact of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between the Robotic and Open Technique in a Single Institution.机器人辅助肝脏手术的财务影响:单机构中机器人技术与开放技术的临床结果和成本对比研究
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Apr;27(4):375-382. doi: 10.1089/lap.2016.0576. Epub 2017 Feb 10.

引用本文的文献

1
Cost analysis of robot NICE procedure versus open, laparoscopic, and robotic colorectal surgery: is there an economic benefit to natural orifice resection?机器人经自然腔道内镜手术(NICE)与开放、腹腔镜及机器人结直肠手术的成本分析:经自然腔道切除手术是否具有经济效益?
Surg Endosc. 2025 Aug 26. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-12050-3.
2
Robotics versus open surgery: the impact on cytokine release and patient outcomes.机器人手术与开放手术:对细胞因子释放及患者预后的影响
J Robot Surg. 2025 Mar 26;19(1):125. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02282-9.
3
A Systematic Review of Current Practices, Challenges, and Future Directions for the Use of Robotic Surgery in Otolaryngology in Greece.希腊耳鼻喉科机器人手术应用的当前实践、挑战及未来方向的系统评价
Cureus. 2024 Nov 25;16(11):e74458. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74458. eCollection 2024 Nov.
4
Robotics, money and research: is data or physician payments driving robotic bariatric surgery literature?机器人技术、资金与研究:是数据还是医生报酬推动了机器人减肥手术文献的发展?
Surg Endosc. 2025 Feb;39(2):1269-1274. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11391-9. Epub 2024 Nov 25.
5
Role of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Public Health: Its Advantages and Challenges.机器人辅助手术在公共卫生中的作用:其优势与挑战。
Cureus. 2024 Jun 23;16(6):e62958. doi: 10.7759/cureus.62958. eCollection 2024 Jun.
6
Robotic Surgery and Hospital Reimbursement.机器人手术与医院报销。
Semin Plast Surg. 2023 Aug 3;37(3):223-228. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1771234. eCollection 2023 Aug.
7
Advancements in Robotic Surgery: A Comprehensive Overview of Current Utilizations and Upcoming Frontiers.机器人手术的进展:当前应用及未来前沿的全面概述。
Cureus. 2023 Dec 12;15(12):e50415. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50415. eCollection 2023 Dec.
8
Significant financial differences of chemical and surgical androgen deprivation in a contemporary cohort.当代队列中化学去势和手术去势的显著财务差异。
Transl Androl Urol. 2022 Sep;11(9):1252-1261. doi: 10.21037/tau-22-191.
9
National epidemiologic trends (2008-2018) in the United States for the incidence and expenditures associated with incisional hernia in relation to abdominal surgery.美国与腹部手术相关的切口疝发病率和支出的国家流行病学趋势(2008-2018 年)。
Hernia. 2022 Oct;26(5):1355-1368. doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02644-4. Epub 2022 Aug 25.
10
Multi-spectrum robotic cardiac surgery: Early outcomes.多光谱机器人心脏手术:早期结果。
JTCVS Tech. 2022 Feb 19;13:74-82. doi: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.12.018. eCollection 2022 Jun.

本文引用的文献

1
Nationwide Assessment of Robotic Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.非小细胞肺癌机器人肺叶切除术的全国性评估
Ann Thorac Surg. 2017 Apr;103(4):1092-1100. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.09.108. Epub 2017 Jan 18.
2
Comparison of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery and Robotic Approaches for Clinical Stage I and Stage II Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database.利用胸外科医师协会数据库比较电视辅助胸腔镜手术和机器人手术治疗临床Ⅰ期和Ⅱ期非小细胞肺癌的效果
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Sep;102(3):917-924. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.032. Epub 2016 May 19.
3
Comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted vs thoracoscopic lobectomy.机器人辅助与胸腔镜肺叶切除术的比较效果。
Chest. 2014 Dec;146(6):1505-1512. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-3032.
4
Comparing robotic lung resection with thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases entered into the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database.将机器人肺切除术与开胸手术及电视辅助胸腔镜手术进行比较,病例数据来自胸外科医师协会数据库。
Innovations (Phila). 2014 Jan-Feb;9(1):10-5. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000043.
5
Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches.定义肺叶切除术和肺段切除术的治疗费用:开放手术、电视辅助胸腔镜手术和机器人手术方式的比较。
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Mar;97(3):1000-7. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.11.021. Epub 2014 Jan 28.
6
Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier).比较机器人辅助胸腔镜肺叶切除术与传统电视辅助胸腔镜肺叶切除术和楔形切除术:来自多医院数据库的结果(Premier)。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Mar;147(3):929-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.09.046. Epub 2013 Nov 8.
7
Open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: review of a national database.开胸、电视辅助胸腔镜手术和机器人辅助肺叶切除术:国家数据库回顾。
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Jan;97(1):236-42; discussion 242-4. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.07.117. Epub 2013 Oct 1.
8
Factors associated with adoption of robotic surgical technology in US hospitals and relationship to radical prostatectomy procedure volume.与美国医院采用机器人手术技术相关的因素及其与根治性前列腺切除术量的关系。
Ann Surg. 2014 Jan;259(1):1-6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a5c8b8.
9
Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review.根治性前列腺切除术治疗前列腺癌的成本:系统评价。
Eur Urol. 2014 Feb;65(2):316-24. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.059. Epub 2012 Sep 5.
10
The impact of complications on costs of major surgical procedures: a cost analysis of 1200 patients.并发症对大型手术费用的影响:1200 例患者的成本分析。
Ann Surg. 2011 Dec;254(6):907-13. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821d4a43.