The new economics of radical prostatectomy

Cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques

Yair Lotan, Jeffrey A Cadeddu, Matthew T. Gettman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

210 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: We evaluated the costs components of laparoscopic (LRP) and robot assisted prostatectomy (RAP), and compared their costs to those of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Materials and Methods: A model was created using commercially available software to compare the costs of treatment with LRP, RAP or RRP. Hospital costs were obtained from a large county hospital. A literature search was performed to determine typical (average) robot costs, length of stay and operative time for RRP, LRP and RAP. We limited our analysis to mature series and included only the most recent efforts. The cost of the robot was estimated at $1,200,000 with a $100,000 yearly maintenance contract. It was assumed that the robot would be used across specialities for a total of 300 cases yearly in a 7-year period. We performed a series of 1 and 2-way sensitivity analyses to evaluate the costs of LRP, RAP and RRP, while varying robot costs, the number of robotic cases, hospital length of stay, operative time and cost of laparoscopic/robotic equipment. Results: RRP was the most cost-effective approach with a cost advantage of $487 and $1,726 over LRP and RAP, respectively. If we excluded the initial cost of purchasing a robot, the cost difference between RRP and RAP was $1,155. This large difference in RRP and RAP costs resulted from a cost of $857 per case to pay for robot purchase and maintenance, and the high cost of $1,705 for equipment per case. An even shorter RAP operative time (140 vs 160 minutes) and length of stay (1.2 vs 2.5 days) did not compensate for the added expenditure. LRP cost more than RRP primarily due to equipment costs ($533) since the shorter hospital stay (1.3 vs 2.5 days) was compensated for by longer operative time (200 vs 160 minutes). Conclusions: The costs of new technology are typically borne out in the first years of use and RAP is no exception with high robot costs for purchase, maintenance and operative equipment overshadowing savings gained by shorter length of stay. While RRP is currently the least costly approach, LRP has proved to be almost as cost competitive as RRP, whereas RAP will require a significant decrease in the cost of the device and maintenance fees.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1431-1435
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume172
Issue number4 I
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2004

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Economics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Length of Stay
Operative Time
Equipment and Supplies
Maintenance
Robotics
County Hospitals
Fees and Charges
Hospital Costs

Keywords

  • Economics
  • Laparoscopy
  • Prostate
  • Prostatectomy
  • Robotics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

The new economics of radical prostatectomy : Cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. / Lotan, Yair; Cadeddu, Jeffrey A; Gettman, Matthew T.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 172, No. 4 I, 10.2004, p. 1431-1435.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{86afbc4e78184efeb954c1585b0b0eed,
title = "The new economics of radical prostatectomy: Cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques",
abstract = "Purpose: We evaluated the costs components of laparoscopic (LRP) and robot assisted prostatectomy (RAP), and compared their costs to those of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Materials and Methods: A model was created using commercially available software to compare the costs of treatment with LRP, RAP or RRP. Hospital costs were obtained from a large county hospital. A literature search was performed to determine typical (average) robot costs, length of stay and operative time for RRP, LRP and RAP. We limited our analysis to mature series and included only the most recent efforts. The cost of the robot was estimated at $1,200,000 with a $100,000 yearly maintenance contract. It was assumed that the robot would be used across specialities for a total of 300 cases yearly in a 7-year period. We performed a series of 1 and 2-way sensitivity analyses to evaluate the costs of LRP, RAP and RRP, while varying robot costs, the number of robotic cases, hospital length of stay, operative time and cost of laparoscopic/robotic equipment. Results: RRP was the most cost-effective approach with a cost advantage of $487 and $1,726 over LRP and RAP, respectively. If we excluded the initial cost of purchasing a robot, the cost difference between RRP and RAP was $1,155. This large difference in RRP and RAP costs resulted from a cost of $857 per case to pay for robot purchase and maintenance, and the high cost of $1,705 for equipment per case. An even shorter RAP operative time (140 vs 160 minutes) and length of stay (1.2 vs 2.5 days) did not compensate for the added expenditure. LRP cost more than RRP primarily due to equipment costs ($533) since the shorter hospital stay (1.3 vs 2.5 days) was compensated for by longer operative time (200 vs 160 minutes). Conclusions: The costs of new technology are typically borne out in the first years of use and RAP is no exception with high robot costs for purchase, maintenance and operative equipment overshadowing savings gained by shorter length of stay. While RRP is currently the least costly approach, LRP has proved to be almost as cost competitive as RRP, whereas RAP will require a significant decrease in the cost of the device and maintenance fees.",
keywords = "Economics, Laparoscopy, Prostate, Prostatectomy, Robotics",
author = "Yair Lotan and Cadeddu, {Jeffrey A} and Gettman, {Matthew T.}",
year = "2004",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1097/01.ju.0000139714.09832.47",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "172",
pages = "1431--1435",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4 I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The new economics of radical prostatectomy

T2 - Cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques

AU - Lotan, Yair

AU - Cadeddu, Jeffrey A

AU - Gettman, Matthew T.

PY - 2004/10

Y1 - 2004/10

N2 - Purpose: We evaluated the costs components of laparoscopic (LRP) and robot assisted prostatectomy (RAP), and compared their costs to those of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Materials and Methods: A model was created using commercially available software to compare the costs of treatment with LRP, RAP or RRP. Hospital costs were obtained from a large county hospital. A literature search was performed to determine typical (average) robot costs, length of stay and operative time for RRP, LRP and RAP. We limited our analysis to mature series and included only the most recent efforts. The cost of the robot was estimated at $1,200,000 with a $100,000 yearly maintenance contract. It was assumed that the robot would be used across specialities for a total of 300 cases yearly in a 7-year period. We performed a series of 1 and 2-way sensitivity analyses to evaluate the costs of LRP, RAP and RRP, while varying robot costs, the number of robotic cases, hospital length of stay, operative time and cost of laparoscopic/robotic equipment. Results: RRP was the most cost-effective approach with a cost advantage of $487 and $1,726 over LRP and RAP, respectively. If we excluded the initial cost of purchasing a robot, the cost difference between RRP and RAP was $1,155. This large difference in RRP and RAP costs resulted from a cost of $857 per case to pay for robot purchase and maintenance, and the high cost of $1,705 for equipment per case. An even shorter RAP operative time (140 vs 160 minutes) and length of stay (1.2 vs 2.5 days) did not compensate for the added expenditure. LRP cost more than RRP primarily due to equipment costs ($533) since the shorter hospital stay (1.3 vs 2.5 days) was compensated for by longer operative time (200 vs 160 minutes). Conclusions: The costs of new technology are typically borne out in the first years of use and RAP is no exception with high robot costs for purchase, maintenance and operative equipment overshadowing savings gained by shorter length of stay. While RRP is currently the least costly approach, LRP has proved to be almost as cost competitive as RRP, whereas RAP will require a significant decrease in the cost of the device and maintenance fees.

AB - Purpose: We evaluated the costs components of laparoscopic (LRP) and robot assisted prostatectomy (RAP), and compared their costs to those of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Materials and Methods: A model was created using commercially available software to compare the costs of treatment with LRP, RAP or RRP. Hospital costs were obtained from a large county hospital. A literature search was performed to determine typical (average) robot costs, length of stay and operative time for RRP, LRP and RAP. We limited our analysis to mature series and included only the most recent efforts. The cost of the robot was estimated at $1,200,000 with a $100,000 yearly maintenance contract. It was assumed that the robot would be used across specialities for a total of 300 cases yearly in a 7-year period. We performed a series of 1 and 2-way sensitivity analyses to evaluate the costs of LRP, RAP and RRP, while varying robot costs, the number of robotic cases, hospital length of stay, operative time and cost of laparoscopic/robotic equipment. Results: RRP was the most cost-effective approach with a cost advantage of $487 and $1,726 over LRP and RAP, respectively. If we excluded the initial cost of purchasing a robot, the cost difference between RRP and RAP was $1,155. This large difference in RRP and RAP costs resulted from a cost of $857 per case to pay for robot purchase and maintenance, and the high cost of $1,705 for equipment per case. An even shorter RAP operative time (140 vs 160 minutes) and length of stay (1.2 vs 2.5 days) did not compensate for the added expenditure. LRP cost more than RRP primarily due to equipment costs ($533) since the shorter hospital stay (1.3 vs 2.5 days) was compensated for by longer operative time (200 vs 160 minutes). Conclusions: The costs of new technology are typically borne out in the first years of use and RAP is no exception with high robot costs for purchase, maintenance and operative equipment overshadowing savings gained by shorter length of stay. While RRP is currently the least costly approach, LRP has proved to be almost as cost competitive as RRP, whereas RAP will require a significant decrease in the cost of the device and maintenance fees.

KW - Economics

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Prostate

KW - Prostatectomy

KW - Robotics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4544338532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4544338532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.ju.0000139714.09832.47

DO - 10.1097/01.ju.0000139714.09832.47

M3 - Article

VL - 172

SP - 1431

EP - 1435

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 4 I

ER -