Robot-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe but costly approach: A national database review

被引:21
|
作者
Pokala, Bhavani [1 ,2 ]
Flores, Laura [3 ]
Armijo, Priscila R. [2 ]
Kothari, Vishal [1 ,2 ]
Oleynikov, Dmitry [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Gen Surg, Omaha, NE USA
[2] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Ctr Adv Surg Technol, Omaha, NE USA
[3] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Coll Med, Omaha, NE USA
来源
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY | 2019年 / 218卷 / 06期
关键词
Cholecystectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Cost; Outcomes; Opiate use; CONVENTIONAL LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY; SINGLE-SITE; OUTCOMES; EXPERIENCE; SURGERY; 4-PORT;
D O I
10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.08.014
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: This study sought to evaluate surgical outcomes, cost, and opiate utilization of patients who underwent laparoscopic (LC) or robotic cholecystectomy (RC). Methods: The Vizient database was queried for patients admitted with mild to moderate severity of illness (SOI) scores who underwent LC or RC from January 2015 through December 2017. Rates of overall complications, postoperative infection, mortality, LOS, cost, and opiate utilization were compared between groups using IBM SPSS v.25.0, alpha = 0.05. Results: 91,849 patients (LC:N = 89,878; RC:N = 1,971) met the inclusion criteria. Robotic approach was associated with more complications (LC:0.9%, RC:1.7%; p <0.001), postoperative infections (LC:0.2%, RC:0.4%; p = 0.033) and a higher direct cost (LC:$6782 +/- 3421, RC:$9354 +/- 5497; p < 0.001). Opiates were prescribed more frequently in the laparoscopic group (LC:98.3%, RC:97.2%; p = 0.002). Conclusion: The direct cost of RC is significantly higher than LC with no added benefit. Routine use of the robotic platform for cholecystectomy should be discouraged until costs are reduced. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1213 / 1218
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Bioethical approach to robot-assisted surgery
    Di Paolo, M.
    Boggi, U.
    Turillazzi, E.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2019, 106 (10) : 1271 - 1272
  • [22] Robot-assisted ankle rehabilitation: a review
    Alvarez-Perez, Marian G.
    Garcia-Murillo, Mario A.
    Jesus Cervantes-Sanchez, J.
    DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION-ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 15 (04) : 394 - 408
  • [23] Robot-Assisted Medical Imaging: A Review
    Salcudean, Septimiu E.
    Moradi, Hamid
    Black, David G.
    Navab, Nassir
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, 2022, 110 (07) : 951 - 967
  • [24] Review of Robot-Assisted HIFU Therapy
    Gunderman, Anthony
    Montayre, Rudy
    Ranjan, Ashish
    Chen, Yue
    SENSORS, 2023, 23 (07)
  • [25] Preoperative planning method based on a MOPSO algorithm for robot-assisted cholecystectomy
    Yang, Yan
    Han, Shuai
    Sang, Hongqiang
    Liu, Fen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOLOGY AND SURGERY, 2022, 17 (04) : 731 - 744
  • [26] Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Initial Mayo Clinic Scottsdale experience
    Miller, DW
    Schlinkert, RT
    Schlinkert, DK
    MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 2004, 79 (09) : 1132 - 1136
  • [27] Preoperative planning method based on a MOPSO algorithm for robot-assisted cholecystectomy
    Yan Yang
    Shuai Han
    Hongqiang Sang
    Fen Liu
    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2022, 17 : 731 - 744
  • [28] Micro-Hand Robot-Assisted Versus da Vinci Robot-Assisted Cholecystectomy: A Multi-centre, Randomized Controlled Trial
    Guohui Wang
    Bo Yi
    Zheng Li
    Liyong Zhu
    Lin Hao
    Yijia Zeng
    Shaihong Zhu
    World Journal of Surgery, 2022, 46 : 2632 - 2641
  • [29] Micro-Hand Robot-Assisted Versus da Vinci Robot-Assisted Cholecystectomy: A Multi-centre, Randomized Controlled Trial
    Wang, Guohui
    Yi, Bo
    Li, Zheng
    Zhu, Liyong
    Hao, Lin
    Zeng, Yijia
    Zhu, Shaihong
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 46 (11) : 2632 - 2641
  • [30] Is robot-assisted laparoscopy safe for surgical treatment of cervical cancer?
    Falconer, Henrik
    Eriksson, Ane Gerda Zahl
    Rudnicki, Martin
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2020, 99 (01) : 5 - 6