Abstract
Background
Robotic surgical systems have been used at a rapidly increasing rate in general surgery. Many of these procedures have been performed laparoscopically for years. In a surgical encounter, a significant portion of the total costs is associated with consumable supplies. Our hospital system has invested in a software program that can track the costs of consumable surgical supplies. We sought to determine the differences in cost of consumables with elective laparoscopic and robotic procedures for our health care organization.
Methods
De-identified procedural cost and equipment utilization data were collected from the Surgical Profitability Compass Procedure Cost Manager System (The Advisory Board Company, Washington, DC) for our health care system for laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and inguinal hernia between the years 2013 and 2015. Outcomes were length of stay, case duration, and supply cost. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test for continuous variables, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.
Results
The total cost of consumable surgical supplies was significantly greater for all robotic procedures. Length of stay did not differ for fundoplication or cholecystectomy. Length of stay was greater for robotic inguinal hernia repair. Case duration was similar for cholecystectomy (84.3 robotic and 75.5 min laparoscopic, p = 0.08), but significantly longer for robotic fundoplication (197.2 robotic and 162.1 min laparoscopic, p = 0.01) and inguinal hernia repair (124.0 robotic and 84.4 min laparoscopic, p = ≪0.01).
Conclusions
We found a significantly increased cost of general surgery procedures for our health care system when cases commonly performed laparoscopically are instead performed robotically. Our analysis is limited by the fact that we only included costs associated with consumable surgical supplies. The initial acquisition cost (over $1 million for robotic surgical system), depreciation, and service contract for the robotic and laparoscopic systems were not included in this analysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Da Vinci Decisions (2013) Health devices. http://www.ecri.org. Accessed 8 Feb 2016
Robotic Surgery (2015) ECRI institute. http://www.ecri.org/robotinfo. Accessed 8 Feb 2016
Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27:2253–2257
Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704
Arita NA, Nguyen MT, Nguyen DH, Berger RL, Lew DF, Suliburk JT, Askenasy EP, Kao LS, Liang MK (2015) Laparoscopic repair reduces incidence of surgical site infections for all ventral hernias. Surg Endosc 29:1769–1780
Byrne J, Saleh F, Ambrosini L, Quereshy F, Jackson TD, Okrainec A (2015) Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: a comparison of outcomes. Surg Endosc 29:2525–2532
Zapf M, Denham W, Barrera E, Butt Z, Carbray J, Wang C, Linn J, Ujiki M (2013) Patient-centered outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27:4491–4498
Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J, Azagury D, Sandler B, Hutter M, Ross S, Haas E, Brody F, Satava R (2015) SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc 29:2873–2884
Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK, Talamini MA (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–116
Szold A, Bergamaschi R, Broeders I, Dankelman J, Forgione A, Lango T, Melzer A, Mintz Y, Morales-Conde S, Rhodes M, Satava R, Tang CN, Vilallonga R (2015) European association of endoscopic surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery. Surg Endosc 29:253–288
Vidovszky TJ, Smith W, Ghosh J, Ali MR (2006) Robotic cholecystectomy: learning curve, advantages, and limitations. J Surg Res 136:172–178
Hanly EJ, Talamini MA (2004) Robotic abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 188:19S–26S
Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:234–238
Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Lee JY (2011) The da Vinci surgical system overcomes innate hand dominance. J Endourol 25:1385–1388
Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD, Okhunov Z, Liss MA, Perez-Lanzac A, McDougall EM, Landman J (2014) Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol 2:261–266
Curro G, Cogliandolo A, Bartolotta M, Navarra G (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26:1–5
Curro G, La Malfa G, Caizzone A, Rampulla V, Navarra G (2015) Three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparison study. Obes Surg 25:2120–2124
Feng X, Morandi A, Boehne M, Imvised T, Ure BM, Kuebler JF, Lacher M (2015) 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy improves operating time in small spaces without impact on hemodynamics and psychomental stress parameters of the surgeon. Surg Endosc 29:1231–1239
Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60:39–45
Moore LF, Wilson MR, Waine E, Masters RSW, McGrath JS, Vine SJ (2015) Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 9:67–73
McVey R, Goldenberg M, Bernardini MQ, Yasufuku K, Quereshy FA, Finelli A, Pace KT, Lee JY (2016) Baseline laparoscopic skill may predict baseline robotic skill and early robotic surgery learning curve. J Endourol (epub ahead of print)
Muller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Wente MN, Bintintan VV, Koninger J, Buchler MW, Gutt CN (2007) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 21:1800–1805
Owen B, Simorov A, Siref A, Shostrom V, Oleynikov D (2014) How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc 28:1686–1690
Wormer BA, Dacey KT, Williams KB, Bradley JF III, Walters AL, Augenstein VA, Stefanidis D, Heniford BT (2014) The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start. Surg Endosc 28:767–776
Escobar Dominguez JE, Ramos MG, Seetharamaiah R, Donkor C, Rabaza J, Gonzalez A (2015) Feasibility of robotic inguinal hernia repair, a single-institution experience. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4717-5
Joshi ART, Spivak J, Rubach E, Goldberg G, DeNoto G (2010) Concurrent robotic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAP) herniorrhaphy during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 6:311–314
Finley DS, Savatta D, Rodriguez E, Kopelan A, Ahlering TE (2008) Transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and inguinal herniorrhaphy. J Robot Surg 1:269–272
Finley DS, Rodriguez E, Ahlering TE (2007) Combined inguinal hernia repair with prosthetic mesh during transperitoneal robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a 4-year experience. J Urol 178:1296–1300
Ito F, Jarrard D, Gould JC (2008) Transabdominal preperitoneal robotic inguinal hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 18:397–399
Nio D, Bemelman WA, Busch ORC, Vrouenraets BC, Gouma DJ (2004) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 18:379–382
Kornprat P, Werkgartner G, Cerwenka H, Bacher H, El-Shabrawi A, Rehak P, Mischinger HJ (2006) Prospective study comparing standard and robotically assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:216–221
Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M, Held U, Weber M, Clavien PA (2008) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg 247:987–993
Intuitive Surgical (2005) Investor FAQ. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=122359&p=irol-faq. Accessed 10 March 2016
Schwaitzberg SD (2015) Financial modeling of current surgical robotic system in outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: how should we think about expense? Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4457-6
Van Gijn W, Wouters MWJM, Peeters KCMJ, Van De Velde CJH (2008) Nationwide outcome registrations to improve quality of care in rectal surgery. An inititiave of the European society of surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol 99:491–496
Govaert JA, van Bommel AC, van Dij WA, van Leersum NJ, Tollenaar RA, Wouters MW (2015) Reducing healthcare costs facilitated by surgical auditing: a systematic review. World J Surg 39:1672–1680
Kashlan OA, Wilson TJ, Chaudhary N, Gemmette JJ, Stetler WR, Dunnick NR, Thompson G, Pandey AS (2014) Reducing costs while maintaining quality in endovascular neurosurgical procedures. J Neurosurg 121:1071–1076
Institute of Medicine (2001) Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Dr. Jon C Gould is a consultant for Torax Medical. Dr. Rana M Higgins, Matthew E Bosler, and Matthew J Frelich have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Higgins, R.M., Frelich, M.J., Bosler, M.E. et al. Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc 31, 185–192 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4954-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4954-2