da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs

Purpose: To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany. Methods: Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urologia internationalis 2016-01, Vol.96 (3), p.287-294
Hauptverfasser: Niklas, Christina, Saar, Matthias, Berg, Britta, Steiner, Katrin, Janssen, Martin, Siemer, Stefan, Stöckle, Michael, Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 294
container_issue 3
container_start_page 287
container_title Urologia internationalis
container_volume 96
creator Niklas, Christina
Saar, Matthias
Berg, Britta
Steiner, Katrin
Janssen, Martin
Siemer, Stefan
Stöckle, Michael
Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning
description Purpose: To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany. Methods: Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized health insurance research database from Germany containing data of patients who underwent robotic-assisted or open radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre study. Results: Significantly better outcomes after robotic-assisted vs. open prostatectomy were observed in regards to positive surgical margins (13.3 vs. 22.4%; p < 0.0001), intraoperative transfusions (0.1 vs. 2.6%; p < 0.0001), hospitalization (8.7 vs. 15.2 days; p < 0.0001) and duration of catheter (6.6 vs. 12.8 days; p < 0.0001). Operating time was significantly longer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when compared to open surgery (184.4 vs. 128.0 min; p < 0.0001), while intraoperative complications showed a similar occurrence between both groups. Significant fewer postoperative complications were observed after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (26.5 vs. 42.5%; p < 0.0001) and rate of re-admission was lower for the robotic patients (13.6 vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0050). While insurance costs were higher in the 2 years before radical prostatectomy for the patients who underwent a robotic procedure (4,241.60 vs. 3,410.23 €; p = 0.202), additive costs of care of the year of surgery plus the 2 following years were less for the robotic cohort when compared to the costs incurred by the open group (21,673.71 vs. 24,512.37 €; p = 0.1676). Conclusions: The observed clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy seem to result in reduced health insurance cost postoperatively when compared to open surgery. This should be taken into consideration regarding reimbursement and implementation of a clinically superior method.
doi_str_mv 10.1159/000431104
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_karge</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A637478574</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A637478574</galeid><sourcerecordid>A637478574</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-e7b356d86bce922bb02bf84df966f6fdbf234bda95f31158cf58aebed8910dee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpt0c1PHCEYB2DS1NTV9tB700ziRQ9jYZgvvG02ajcxbtPUXgkfLxadgRFmDvvfyzp2ExPDAQLP7w3wIvSV4HNCKvYDY1xSQnD5AS1IWdAcU8Y-okXaLnJCaHuIjmJ8wDhh1nxCh0WdVrjCC_RPi-yvdcpmwulsM4DLfgttleiyX8HHUYygRt9vL7KV7wcRbPQu8yZbdda9qM00Kt9DfMkvnei20cadWLs4BeEUpGQc42d0YEQX4cvrfIzuri7_rH7mN5vr9Wp5k6sSkzGHRtKq1m0tFbCikBIX0rSlNqyuTW20NAUtpRasMunFVatM1QqQoFtGsAagx-h0rjsE_zRBHHlvo4KuEw78FDlpGoaLVKRO9GSm96IDbp3xYxBqx_mypk3ZtFVTJnX-jkpDQ2-Vd2Bs2n8TOJsDKn1gDGD4EGwvwpYTzHf94vt-Jfv99baT7EHv5f8GJfBtBo8i3EPYg33-5N3ju_XtLPigDX0Gs66j9g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1779022346</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Karger Journals</source><creator>Niklas, Christina ; Saar, Matthias ; Berg, Britta ; Steiner, Katrin ; Janssen, Martin ; Siemer, Stefan ; Stöckle, Michael ; Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning</creator><creatorcontrib>Niklas, Christina ; Saar, Matthias ; Berg, Britta ; Steiner, Katrin ; Janssen, Martin ; Siemer, Stefan ; Stöckle, Michael ; Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Purpose: To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany. Methods: Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized health insurance research database from Germany containing data of patients who underwent robotic-assisted or open radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre study. Results: Significantly better outcomes after robotic-assisted vs. open prostatectomy were observed in regards to positive surgical margins (13.3 vs. 22.4%; p < 0.0001), intraoperative transfusions (0.1 vs. 2.6%; p < 0.0001), hospitalization (8.7 vs. 15.2 days; p < 0.0001) and duration of catheter (6.6 vs. 12.8 days; p < 0.0001). Operating time was significantly longer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when compared to open surgery (184.4 vs. 128.0 min; p < 0.0001), while intraoperative complications showed a similar occurrence between both groups. Significant fewer postoperative complications were observed after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (26.5 vs. 42.5%; p < 0.0001) and rate of re-admission was lower for the robotic patients (13.6 vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0050). While insurance costs were higher in the 2 years before radical prostatectomy for the patients who underwent a robotic procedure (4,241.60 vs. 3,410.23 €; p = 0.202), additive costs of care of the year of surgery plus the 2 following years were less for the robotic cohort when compared to the costs incurred by the open group (21,673.71 vs. 24,512.37 €; p = 0.1676). Conclusions: The observed clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy seem to result in reduced health insurance cost postoperatively when compared to open surgery. This should be taken into consideration regarding reimbursement and implementation of a clinically superior method.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0042-1138</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1423-0399</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000431104</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26159050</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Aged ; Analysis ; Catheterization ; Comparative analysis ; Germany ; Health Care Costs ; Health insurance ; Humans ; Insurance, Health - economics ; Intraoperative Period ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Length of Stay ; Male ; Medical care, Cost of ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Operative Time ; Original Paper ; Patient outcomes ; Perioperative Period ; Postoperative Complications ; Prices and rates ; Prostate - surgery ; Prostatectomy ; Prostatectomy - economics ; Prostatectomy - methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms - economics ; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures - economics ; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Urologia internationalis, 2016-01, Vol.96 (3), p.287-294</ispartof><rights>2015 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 S. Karger AG</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-e7b356d86bce922bb02bf84df966f6fdbf234bda95f31158cf58aebed8910dee3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-e7b356d86bce922bb02bf84df966f6fdbf234bda95f31158cf58aebed8910dee3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0833-2988 ; 0000-0002-6351-8056</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,2422,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26159050$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Niklas, Christina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saar, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berg, Britta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steiner, Katrin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janssen, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siemer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stöckle, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning</creatorcontrib><title>da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs</title><title>Urologia internationalis</title><addtitle>Urol Int</addtitle><description><![CDATA[Purpose: To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany. Methods: Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized health insurance research database from Germany containing data of patients who underwent robotic-assisted or open radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre study. Results: Significantly better outcomes after robotic-assisted vs. open prostatectomy were observed in regards to positive surgical margins (13.3 vs. 22.4%; p < 0.0001), intraoperative transfusions (0.1 vs. 2.6%; p < 0.0001), hospitalization (8.7 vs. 15.2 days; p < 0.0001) and duration of catheter (6.6 vs. 12.8 days; p < 0.0001). Operating time was significantly longer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when compared to open surgery (184.4 vs. 128.0 min; p < 0.0001), while intraoperative complications showed a similar occurrence between both groups. Significant fewer postoperative complications were observed after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (26.5 vs. 42.5%; p < 0.0001) and rate of re-admission was lower for the robotic patients (13.6 vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0050). While insurance costs were higher in the 2 years before radical prostatectomy for the patients who underwent a robotic procedure (4,241.60 vs. 3,410.23 €; p = 0.202), additive costs of care of the year of surgery plus the 2 following years were less for the robotic cohort when compared to the costs incurred by the open group (21,673.71 vs. 24,512.37 €; p = 0.1676). Conclusions: The observed clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy seem to result in reduced health insurance cost postoperatively when compared to open surgery. This should be taken into consideration regarding reimbursement and implementation of a clinically superior method.]]></description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Catheterization</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Germany</subject><subject>Health Care Costs</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Insurance, Health - economics</subject><subject>Intraoperative Period</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical care, Cost of</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Perioperative Period</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Prices and rates</subject><subject>Prostate - surgery</subject><subject>Prostatectomy</subject><subject>Prostatectomy - economics</subject><subject>Prostatectomy - methods</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - economics</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Robotic surgery</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures - economics</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0042-1138</issn><issn>1423-0399</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpt0c1PHCEYB2DS1NTV9tB700ziRQ9jYZgvvG02ajcxbtPUXgkfLxadgRFmDvvfyzp2ExPDAQLP7w3wIvSV4HNCKvYDY1xSQnD5AS1IWdAcU8Y-okXaLnJCaHuIjmJ8wDhh1nxCh0WdVrjCC_RPi-yvdcpmwulsM4DLfgttleiyX8HHUYygRt9vL7KV7wcRbPQu8yZbdda9qM00Kt9DfMkvnei20cadWLs4BeEUpGQc42d0YEQX4cvrfIzuri7_rH7mN5vr9Wp5k6sSkzGHRtKq1m0tFbCikBIX0rSlNqyuTW20NAUtpRasMunFVatM1QqQoFtGsAagx-h0rjsE_zRBHHlvo4KuEw78FDlpGoaLVKRO9GSm96IDbp3xYxBqx_mypk3ZtFVTJnX-jkpDQ2-Vd2Bs2n8TOJsDKn1gDGD4EGwvwpYTzHf94vt-Jfv99baT7EHv5f8GJfBtBo8i3EPYg33-5N3ju_XtLPigDX0Gs66j9g</recordid><startdate>20160101</startdate><enddate>20160101</enddate><creator>Niklas, Christina</creator><creator>Saar, Matthias</creator><creator>Berg, Britta</creator><creator>Steiner, Katrin</creator><creator>Janssen, Martin</creator><creator>Siemer, Stefan</creator><creator>Stöckle, Michael</creator><creator>Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0833-2988</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6351-8056</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160101</creationdate><title>da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs</title><author>Niklas, Christina ; Saar, Matthias ; Berg, Britta ; Steiner, Katrin ; Janssen, Martin ; Siemer, Stefan ; Stöckle, Michael ; Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-e7b356d86bce922bb02bf84df966f6fdbf234bda95f31158cf58aebed8910dee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Catheterization</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Germany</topic><topic>Health Care Costs</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Insurance, Health - economics</topic><topic>Intraoperative Period</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical care, Cost of</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Perioperative Period</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Prices and rates</topic><topic>Prostate - surgery</topic><topic>Prostatectomy</topic><topic>Prostatectomy - economics</topic><topic>Prostatectomy - methods</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - economics</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Robotic surgery</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures - economics</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Niklas, Christina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saar, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berg, Britta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steiner, Katrin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janssen, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siemer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stöckle, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urologia internationalis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Niklas, Christina</au><au>Saar, Matthias</au><au>Berg, Britta</au><au>Steiner, Katrin</au><au>Janssen, Martin</au><au>Siemer, Stefan</au><au>Stöckle, Michael</au><au>Ohlmann, Carsten-Henning</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs</atitle><jtitle>Urologia internationalis</jtitle><addtitle>Urol Int</addtitle><date>2016-01-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>96</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>287</spage><epage>294</epage><pages>287-294</pages><issn>0042-1138</issn><eissn>1423-0399</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Purpose: To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany. Methods: Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized health insurance research database from Germany containing data of patients who underwent robotic-assisted or open radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre study. Results: Significantly better outcomes after robotic-assisted vs. open prostatectomy were observed in regards to positive surgical margins (13.3 vs. 22.4%; p < 0.0001), intraoperative transfusions (0.1 vs. 2.6%; p < 0.0001), hospitalization (8.7 vs. 15.2 days; p < 0.0001) and duration of catheter (6.6 vs. 12.8 days; p < 0.0001). Operating time was significantly longer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when compared to open surgery (184.4 vs. 128.0 min; p < 0.0001), while intraoperative complications showed a similar occurrence between both groups. Significant fewer postoperative complications were observed after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (26.5 vs. 42.5%; p < 0.0001) and rate of re-admission was lower for the robotic patients (13.6 vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0050). While insurance costs were higher in the 2 years before radical prostatectomy for the patients who underwent a robotic procedure (4,241.60 vs. 3,410.23 €; p = 0.202), additive costs of care of the year of surgery plus the 2 following years were less for the robotic cohort when compared to the costs incurred by the open group (21,673.71 vs. 24,512.37 €; p = 0.1676). Conclusions: The observed clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy seem to result in reduced health insurance cost postoperatively when compared to open surgery. This should be taken into consideration regarding reimbursement and implementation of a clinically superior method.]]></abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>26159050</pmid><doi>10.1159/000431104</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0833-2988</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6351-8056</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0042-1138
ispartof Urologia internationalis, 2016-01, Vol.96 (3), p.287-294
issn 0042-1138
1423-0399
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A637478574
source MEDLINE; Karger Journals
subjects Aged
Analysis
Catheterization
Comparative analysis
Germany
Health Care Costs
Health insurance
Humans
Insurance, Health - economics
Intraoperative Period
Laparoscopy - methods
Length of Stay
Male
Medical care, Cost of
Methods
Middle Aged
Operative Time
Original Paper
Patient outcomes
Perioperative Period
Postoperative Complications
Prices and rates
Prostate - surgery
Prostatectomy
Prostatectomy - economics
Prostatectomy - methods
Prostatic Neoplasms - economics
Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery
Retrospective Studies
Robotic surgery
Robotic Surgical Procedures - economics
Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods
Treatment Outcome
title da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T04%3A25%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_karge&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=da%20Vinci%20and%20Open%20Radical%20Prostatectomy:%20Comparison%20of%20Clinical%20Outcomes%20and%20Analysis%20of%20Insurance%20Costs&rft.jtitle=Urologia%20internationalis&rft.au=Niklas,%20Christina&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.volume=96&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=287&rft.epage=294&rft.pages=287-294&rft.issn=0042-1138&rft.eissn=1423-0399&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000431104&rft_dat=%3Cgale_karge%3EA637478574%3C/gale_karge%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1779022346&rft_id=info:pmid/26159050&rft_galeid=A637478574&rfr_iscdi=true