Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Judd, JP; Siddiqui, NY; Barnett, JC; Visco, AG; Havrilesky, LJ; Wu, JM
Published in: J Minim Invasive Gynecol
2010

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-minimization analysis comparing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. DESIGN: Cost-minimization analysis using a micro-costing approach (Canadian Task Force classification III). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A decision model was developed to compare the costs (2008 US dollars) of robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Our model included operative time, risk of conversion, risk of transfusion, and length of stay (LOS) for each method. Respective baseline estimates for robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures included operative time (328, 269, and 170 minutes), conversion (1.4%, 1.8%, and 0%), transfusion (1.4%, 1.8%, 3.8%), and LOS (1.0, 1.8, and 2.7 days). Two models were used, the Robot Existing model, that is, current hospital ownership of a robotic system, and the Robot Purchase model, that is, initial hospital purchase of a robotic system, with purchase and maintenance costs amortized and distributed across robotic procedures. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of varying each parameter through its range. For the Robot Existing robot model, robotic sacrocolpopexy was the most expensive, $8508 per procedure compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at $7353 and abdominal sacrocolpopexy at $5792. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy became cost-equivalent only when robotic operative time was reduced to 149 minutes, robotic disposables costs were reduced to $2132, or laparoscopic disposable costs were increased to $3413. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy became cost-equivalent only when laparoscopic disposable costs were reduced to $668, mean LOS for abdominal sacrocolpopexy was increased to 5.6 days, or surgeon reimbursement for abdominal sacrocolpopexy exceeded $2213. The addition of robotic purchase and maintenance costs resulted in an incremental increase of $581, $865, and $1724 per procedure when these costs were distributed over 60, 40, and 20 procedures per month, respectively. CONCLUSION: Robotic sacrocolpopexy was more expensive compared with the laparoscopic or abdominal routes under the baseline assumptions.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

J Minim Invasive Gynecol

DOI

ISSN

1553-4650

Publication Date

2010

Volume

17

Issue

4

Start / End Page

493 / 499

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Urologic Surgical Procedures
  • United States
  • Robotics
  • Postoperative Care
  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse
  • Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine
  • Length of Stay
  • Laparoscopy
  • Humans
  • Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Judd, J. P., Siddiqui, N. Y., Barnett, J. C., Visco, A. G., Havrilesky, L. J., & Wu, J. M. (2010). Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 17(4), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.011
Judd, John P., Nazema Y. Siddiqui, Jason C. Barnett, Anthony G. Visco, Laura J. Havrilesky, and Jennifer M. Wu. “Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17, no. 4 (2010): 493–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.011.
Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):493–9.
Judd, John P., et al. “Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.J Minim Invasive Gynecol, vol. 17, no. 4, 2010, pp. 493–99. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.011.
Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):493–499.
Journal cover image

Published In

J Minim Invasive Gynecol

DOI

ISSN

1553-4650

Publication Date

2010

Volume

17

Issue

4

Start / End Page

493 / 499

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Urologic Surgical Procedures
  • United States
  • Robotics
  • Postoperative Care
  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse
  • Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine
  • Length of Stay
  • Laparoscopy
  • Humans
  • Gynecologic Surgical Procedures