Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a contemporary comparative cost-analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). METHODS: All patients undergoing RARP (n = 115) or RRP (n = 358) by 1 of 4 surgeons at a single institution during a 15-month period were retrospectively reviewed. The hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, hospital charges, reimbursement, and direct and indirect hospital costs were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The mean LOS between patients undergoing RARP (1.2 ± 0.6 days) and RRP (1.4 ± 0.8 days) was not significantly different. The operating room supply costs per case were almost 7 times greater for RARP ($2852 ± $528) than for RRP ($417 ± $59; P < .05). The ancillary, cardiology, imaging, administrative, laboratory, and pharmacy costs were not significantly different between the 2 approaches. The mean total costs per case for RARP exceeded the total costs for RRP by 62% ($14 006 ± $1641 vs $8686 ± $1989; P < .05). Payment to the hospital from all sources was nearly equivalent: $10 011 for RRP and $9993 for RARP. Therefore, the average profit for each RRP was $1325 and each RARP lost $4013. CONCLUSION: In the present single-institution analysis, the total actual costs associated with RARP were significantly greater than those for RRP and were attributable to the robotic equipment and supplies.

Combining brain diagnosis and therapy in a single strategy: the safety, reliability, and cost implications using same-day versus separate-day stereotactic procedures.

BACKGROUND: A therapeutic radiosurgery procedure usually follows a separate diagnostic stereotactic procedure after days or weeks. OBJECTIVES: To define the clinical reliability, safety, and cost implications of same-day diagnostic stereotactic biopsy and therapeutic radiosurgery. METHODS: During an 8-year interval, 26 patients underwent stereotactic brain biopsy followed by immediate therapeutic stereotactic radiosurgery in a single-day combined procedure. The intraoperative diagnosis was determined using standard histopathological techniques. Diagnostic accuracy, hospital costs, and contribution margins associated with this treatment strategy were compared to those of 26 case-matched patients (controls) who underwent a stereotactic diagnostic procedure followed by a separate-day outpatient SRS procedure within 6 weeks during the same time interval. RESULTS: The intraoperative diagnosis correlated with the final histopathological diagnosis in 96% of the patients. Biopsy-related morbidity did not occur in this series. The mean total costs of same-day patients was significantly lower than the costs of patients who had two-stage procedures (USD 9,077 ± 2,366 vs. 11,284 ± 3,025; p = 0.008). The net contribution to the hospital margin of USD 13,736 was not significantly different between the two management strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of the same-day approach included a single stereotactic head frame application, reduced total admission time, consecutive histopathological diagnosis and therapy in a single hospital admission, and reduced total hospital costs. For patients who are highly suspected to have a brain tumor for which SRS is likely to be an effective therapeutic strategy, same-day diagnostic stereotactic biopsy followed by therapeutic SRS proved to be a safe, reliable, and cost-effective management strategy.