» Articles » PMID: 26159050

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

Overview
Journal Urol Int
Publisher Karger
Specialty Urology
Date 2015 Jul 11
PMID 26159050
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

The use of laser-assisted cart positioning significantly reduces the docking time of multimodular robotic systems.

Baunacke M, Hirtsiefer C, Herout R, Mehralivand S, Oelkers S, Kaske O J Robot Surg. 2025; 19(1):46.

PMID: 39762685 PMC: 11703870. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02196-y.


The Combination of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery: First Experience with the Dexter Robotic System™ in Visceral Surgery.

Conrad P, Mehdorn A, Alkatout I, Becker T, Beckmann J, Pochhammer J Life (Basel). 2024; 14(7).

PMID: 39063627 PMC: 11277731. DOI: 10.3390/life14070874.


Robotic Surgery and Hospital Reimbursement.

Yim N, McCarter J, Haykal T, Aral A, Yu J, Reece E Semin Plast Surg. 2024; 37(3):223-228.

PMID: 38444958 PMC: 10911894. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771234.


Bilateral subgaleal hematoma after a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an uncommon complication.

Rubio Baines I, Martinez Simon A, Ancizu F, Olavide I, Honorato-Cia C An Sist Sanit Navar. 2023; 46(2).

PMID: 37655876 PMC: 10520747. DOI: 10.23938/ASSN.1047.


Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review.

Zahid A, Ayyan M, Farooq M, Ahmad Cheema H, Shahid A, Naeem F J Robot Surg. 2022; 17(1):11-29.

PMID: 35526260 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01416-7.