Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?
Background Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns. Objectives The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional lap...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Obesity surgery 2020-12, Vol.30 (12), p.4860-4866 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 4866 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 4860 |
| container_title | Obesity surgery |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | King, Keith Galvez, Alvaro Stoltzfus, Jill Claros, Leonardo El Chaar, Maher |
| description | Background
Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns.
Objectives
The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB).
Methods
We analyzed consecutive primary bariatric patients who underwent R-RYGB and compared them with patients who underwent L-RYGB during the same time period. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system, and contains hospital-based data only. Secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions.
Results
We found no difference in primary or secondary outcomes following R-RYGB and L-RYGB. The overall cost for R-RYGB and L-RYGB was not statistically different (median total cost for R-RYGB and L-RYBG was $6431.34 and $6349.09,
P
> 0.05, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB ($2248.51 versus $19,836.29, respectively,
P
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11695-020-04881-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2428063612</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2428063612</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-7f0f9a51f2a18c5e8ccf03f69027bc7cb7ca56146cb8fa2f3a85dbc59aed00f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9rGzEQxUVISdw0X6CHIsglF7UjyStpewmuyT8IBNL2kJPQylJYs165mt3G_vZV4rSBHHoaZuY3b-A9Qj5y-MwB9BfkXNUVAwEMpsZwttkjE67BlFaYfTKBWgEztZCH5D3iEkBwJcQBOZRCCxCKT8hynnCgs951W2yRpkjvUpOG1pc6bljo2T29dDjkMvm2XTtE2vbU0e9t_9AFOvNuEVZlNw_9EPJXepUe6flmHXpsfwd6ja_N2QfyLroOw_FLPSI_L85_zK_Yze3l9Xx2w7zU1cB0hFi7ikfhuPFVMN5HkFHVIHTjtW-0d5XiU-UbE52I0plq0fiqdmEBELk8Iqc73XVOv8aAg1216EPXuT6kEa0o5oCSiouCnrxBl2nMxYwnSktR_lTTQokd5XNCzCHadW5XLm8tB_uUhN0lYUsS9jkJuylHn16kx2YVFv9O_lpfALkDsKz6h5Bff_9H9g8MwZPE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2473256154</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>King, Keith ; Galvez, Alvaro ; Stoltzfus, Jill ; Claros, Leonardo ; El Chaar, Maher</creator><creatorcontrib>King, Keith ; Galvez, Alvaro ; Stoltzfus, Jill ; Claros, Leonardo ; El Chaar, Maher</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns.
Objectives
The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB).
Methods
We analyzed consecutive primary bariatric patients who underwent R-RYGB and compared them with patients who underwent L-RYGB during the same time period. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system, and contains hospital-based data only. Secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions.
Results
We found no difference in primary or secondary outcomes following R-RYGB and L-RYGB. The overall cost for R-RYGB and L-RYGB was not statistically different (median total cost for R-RYGB and L-RYBG was $6431.34 and $6349.09,
P
> 0.05, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB ($2248.51 versus $19,836.29, respectively,
P
< 0.0001, respectively). R-RYGB had lower cost of supplies as well as a shorter length of stay compared with L-RYGB (mean 1.5 versus 1.7 days, respectively).
Conclusions
Our study revealed no cost difference between R-RYGB and L-RYGB, with a decreased cost of supplies and trend toward lower hospital stay favoring R-RYGB. Further studies are needed to evaluate the outcomes of R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB; however, the cost of robotic surgery may not be a prohibitive factor.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-8923</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1708-0428</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11695-020-04881-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32720261</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis ; Gastric Bypass ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Obesity, Morbid - surgery ; Original Contributions ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Obesity surgery, 2020-12, Vol.30 (12), p.4860-4866</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-7f0f9a51f2a18c5e8ccf03f69027bc7cb7ca56146cb8fa2f3a85dbc59aed00f13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-7f0f9a51f2a18c5e8ccf03f69027bc7cb7ca56146cb8fa2f3a85dbc59aed00f13</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4685-4530</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11695-020-04881-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11695-020-04881-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32720261$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>King, Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galvez, Alvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoltzfus, Jill</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claros, Leonardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El Chaar, Maher</creatorcontrib><title>Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?</title><title>Obesity surgery</title><addtitle>OBES SURG</addtitle><addtitle>Obes Surg</addtitle><description>Background
Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns.
Objectives
The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB).
Methods
We analyzed consecutive primary bariatric patients who underwent R-RYGB and compared them with patients who underwent L-RYGB during the same time period. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system, and contains hospital-based data only. Secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions.
Results
We found no difference in primary or secondary outcomes following R-RYGB and L-RYGB. The overall cost for R-RYGB and L-RYGB was not statistically different (median total cost for R-RYGB and L-RYBG was $6431.34 and $6349.09,
P
> 0.05, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB ($2248.51 versus $19,836.29, respectively,
P
< 0.0001, respectively). R-RYGB had lower cost of supplies as well as a shorter length of stay compared with L-RYGB (mean 1.5 versus 1.7 days, respectively).
Conclusions
Our study revealed no cost difference between R-RYGB and L-RYGB, with a decreased cost of supplies and trend toward lower hospital stay favoring R-RYGB. Further studies are needed to evaluate the outcomes of R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB; however, the cost of robotic surgery may not be a prohibitive factor.</description><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Gastric Bypass</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Obesity, Morbid - surgery</subject><subject>Original Contributions</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Robotic surgery</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0960-8923</issn><issn>1708-0428</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9rGzEQxUVISdw0X6CHIsglF7UjyStpewmuyT8IBNL2kJPQylJYs165mt3G_vZV4rSBHHoaZuY3b-A9Qj5y-MwB9BfkXNUVAwEMpsZwttkjE67BlFaYfTKBWgEztZCH5D3iEkBwJcQBOZRCCxCKT8hynnCgs951W2yRpkjvUpOG1pc6bljo2T29dDjkMvm2XTtE2vbU0e9t_9AFOvNuEVZlNw_9EPJXepUe6flmHXpsfwd6ja_N2QfyLroOw_FLPSI_L85_zK_Yze3l9Xx2w7zU1cB0hFi7ikfhuPFVMN5HkFHVIHTjtW-0d5XiU-UbE52I0plq0fiqdmEBELk8Iqc73XVOv8aAg1216EPXuT6kEa0o5oCSiouCnrxBl2nMxYwnSktR_lTTQokd5XNCzCHadW5XLm8tB_uUhN0lYUsS9jkJuylHn16kx2YVFv9O_lpfALkDsKz6h5Bff_9H9g8MwZPE</recordid><startdate>20201201</startdate><enddate>20201201</enddate><creator>King, Keith</creator><creator>Galvez, Alvaro</creator><creator>Stoltzfus, Jill</creator><creator>Claros, Leonardo</creator><creator>El Chaar, Maher</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</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>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4685-4530</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201201</creationdate><title>Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?</title><author>King, Keith ; Galvez, Alvaro ; Stoltzfus, Jill ; Claros, Leonardo ; El Chaar, Maher</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-7f0f9a51f2a18c5e8ccf03f69027bc7cb7ca56146cb8fa2f3a85dbc59aed00f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Gastric Bypass</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Obesity, Morbid - surgery</topic><topic>Original Contributions</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Robotic surgery</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>King, Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galvez, Alvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoltzfus, Jill</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claros, Leonardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El Chaar, Maher</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Obesity surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>King, Keith</au><au>Galvez, Alvaro</au><au>Stoltzfus, Jill</au><au>Claros, Leonardo</au><au>El Chaar, Maher</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?</atitle><jtitle>Obesity surgery</jtitle><stitle>OBES SURG</stitle><addtitle>Obes Surg</addtitle><date>2020-12-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>4860</spage><epage>4866</epage><pages>4860-4866</pages><issn>0960-8923</issn><eissn>1708-0428</eissn><abstract>Background
Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns.
Objectives
The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB).
Methods
We analyzed consecutive primary bariatric patients who underwent R-RYGB and compared them with patients who underwent L-RYGB during the same time period. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system, and contains hospital-based data only. Secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions.
Results
We found no difference in primary or secondary outcomes following R-RYGB and L-RYGB. The overall cost for R-RYGB and L-RYGB was not statistically different (median total cost for R-RYGB and L-RYBG was $6431.34 and $6349.09,
P
> 0.05, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB ($2248.51 versus $19,836.29, respectively,
P
< 0.0001, respectively). R-RYGB had lower cost of supplies as well as a shorter length of stay compared with L-RYGB (mean 1.5 versus 1.7 days, respectively).
Conclusions
Our study revealed no cost difference between R-RYGB and L-RYGB, with a decreased cost of supplies and trend toward lower hospital stay favoring R-RYGB. Further studies are needed to evaluate the outcomes of R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB; however, the cost of robotic surgery may not be a prohibitive factor.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>32720261</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11695-020-04881-x</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4685-4530</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0960-8923 |
| ispartof | Obesity surgery, 2020-12, Vol.30 (12), p.4860-4866 |
| issn | 0960-8923 1708-0428 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2428063612 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Costs and Cost Analysis Gastric Bypass Gastrointestinal surgery Humans Laparoscopy Medicine Medicine & Public Health Obesity, Morbid - surgery Original Contributions Retrospective Studies Robotic surgery Robotic Surgical Procedures Surgery Treatment Outcome |
| title | Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T03%3A03%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost%20Analysis%20of%20Robotic%20Roux-en-Y%20Gastric%20Bypass%20in%20a%20Single%20Academic%20Center:%20How%20Expensive%20Is%20Expensive?&rft.jtitle=Obesity%20surgery&rft.au=King,%20Keith&rft.date=2020-12-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=4860&rft.epage=4866&rft.pages=4860-4866&rft.issn=0960-8923&rft.eissn=1708-0428&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11695-020-04881-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2428063612%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2473256154&rft_id=info:pmid/32720261&rfr_iscdi=true |