Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Las Angeles, CA. Electronic address: http://www.twitter.com/Ng_Ayesha.
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.
Surgery. 2023 Jun;173(6):1340-1345. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.02.016. Epub 2023 Mar 21.
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.
尽管机器人辅助手术的应用不断扩大,但该平台的成本效益仍不清楚。本研究旨在比较机器人辅助手术与腹腔镜方法在主要腹部手术中的住院费用和临床结果。
在 2012 年至 2019 年国家住院患者样本中,确定了所有接受微创胃切除术、胆囊切除术、结肠切除术(右、左、横、乙状结肠)、腹疝修补术、子宫切除术和腹会阴切除术的成年人。排除同时进行的手术记录。采用多变量线性和逻辑回归分析手术方式与成本、住院时间和并发症的关系。使用手术方式与年份的交互项来分析随时间推移的成本差异。
在估计的 1124450 名患者中,75.8%接受了腹腔镜手术,24.2%接受了机器人辅助手术。与腹腔镜相比,接受机器人辅助手术的患者更年轻,且更常见于私人保险。腹腔镜病例的平均住院费用为 16000±14800 美元,机器人辅助病例为 18300±13900 美元(P<.001)。无论手术类型如何,所有机器人辅助手术的费用均高于腹腔镜手术。风险调整的趋势分析显示,腹腔镜和机器人辅助手术之间的成本差异持续存在,并随着时间的推移从 2012 年的 1600 美元扩大到 2019 年的 2600 美元。与腹腔镜手术相比,机器人手术的并发症减少了 2.2%(9.4%对 11.6%,P<.001),住院时间缩短了 0.7 天(95%置信区间-0.8 至-0.7)。
机器人辅助与腹腔镜腹部手术的成本差异随着时间的推移而持续存在。鉴于不良结局的适度改善,有必要进一步调查机器人手术的临床获益,以证明其更高的成本是合理的。