TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-conscious robotic restorative proctectomy has similar economic and oncologic outcomes to open restorative proctectomy
T2 - Results of a long-term follow-up study
AU - Cengiz, Turgut Bora
AU - Benlice, Cigdem
AU - Ozgur, Ilker
AU - Kaya, Gizem
AU - Aytac, Erman
AU - Kalady, Matthew F.
AU - Steele, Scott R.
AU - Liska, David
AU - Gorgun, Emre
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Background: In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients. Methods: We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups. Results: There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 ± 0.5 vs. 1 ± 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90). Conclusion: Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer.
AB - Background: In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients. Methods: We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups. Results: There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 ± 0.5 vs. 1 ± 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90). Conclusion: Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer.
KW - cost-conscious approach
KW - rectal cancer surgery
KW - robotic surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85115724453&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/rcs.2331
DO - 10.1002/rcs.2331
M3 - Article
C2 - 34514721
AN - SCOPUS:85115724453
SN - 1478-5951
VL - 17
JO - International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
JF - International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
IS - 6
M1 - e2331
ER -