We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Robotic Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lung Resection During Early Program Development.
Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2018 April
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to compare robotic portal (RP) to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) pulmonary resections for early stage non-small cell lung cancer with respect to health care resource utilization during the first year of a robotic surgery program in thoracic oncology.
METHODS: Patients who underwent anatomic lung resections using RP (n = 42) or VATS (n = 96) for early stage non-small cell lung cancer between April 2014 and March 2015 at a single institution were identified. Patient-level case costing data for hospital and home care-associated resource variables were recorded. We adopted a health care payer perspective and 30-day posthospital discharge/death time horizon. Parametric or nonparametric tests were used as appropriate and incremental cost difference using 10,000 bootstrap samples using bias-corrected and accelerated method to generate 95% confidence intervals for total cost.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The median total hospital cost per patient was $15,247 (95% confidence interval: $15,643 to $18,945) in the RP cohort, compared with $12,131 (95% confidence interval: $13,218 to $15,879) in the VATS cohort (n = 96; p < 0.001). Longer operating times in the RP group were the main driver of higher hospital costs. Post-hoc analysis of mean operating room time for first 20 RP procedures versus remaining 22 RP procedures found a mean difference of 71 minutes (p = 0.004), resulting in an intraoperative cost difference of $883.38 (p = 0.036).
CONCLUSIONS: A micro-costing analysis demonstrates that RP pulmonary resection for early stage non-small cell lung cancer utilizes more health care resource dollars when compared with VATS during early program development, but offers similar perioperative outcomes.
METHODS: Patients who underwent anatomic lung resections using RP (n = 42) or VATS (n = 96) for early stage non-small cell lung cancer between April 2014 and March 2015 at a single institution were identified. Patient-level case costing data for hospital and home care-associated resource variables were recorded. We adopted a health care payer perspective and 30-day posthospital discharge/death time horizon. Parametric or nonparametric tests were used as appropriate and incremental cost difference using 10,000 bootstrap samples using bias-corrected and accelerated method to generate 95% confidence intervals for total cost.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The median total hospital cost per patient was $15,247 (95% confidence interval: $15,643 to $18,945) in the RP cohort, compared with $12,131 (95% confidence interval: $13,218 to $15,879) in the VATS cohort (n = 96; p < 0.001). Longer operating times in the RP group were the main driver of higher hospital costs. Post-hoc analysis of mean operating room time for first 20 RP procedures versus remaining 22 RP procedures found a mean difference of 71 minutes (p = 0.004), resulting in an intraoperative cost difference of $883.38 (p = 0.036).
CONCLUSIONS: A micro-costing analysis demonstrates that RP pulmonary resection for early stage non-small cell lung cancer utilizes more health care resource dollars when compared with VATS during early program development, but offers similar perioperative outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app