Achieving robotic program best practice performance and cost versus laparoscopy: Two case studies define a framework for optimization.


Journal

The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS
ISSN: 1478-596X
Titre abrégé: Int J Med Robot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101250764

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Historique:
received: 09 10 2019
revised: 14 01 2020
accepted: 13 02 2020
pubmed: 26 2 2020
medline: 19 8 2021
entrez: 26 2 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Robotic surgery is seen by many hospital administrators and surgeons as slower and more expensive than laparoscopic surgery despite the implementation of commonly held robotic best practices. Multiple factors, including surgeon learning curves and program governance, are often overlooked, precluding optimal robotic program performance. An assessment of several leading robotic surgery publications is presented followed by real-world case studies from two US hospitals: an existing robotic program in a mid-sized, regional hospital system and a small, rural hospital that launched a new program. Improvements in robotic surgery costs/program efficiency were seen at the hospital system vs baseline at 18 months post-implementation; and high-performance robotic efficiency and cost benchmarks were matched or surpassed at the rural hospital at 1 year post-launch. When best practices are utilized in robotic programs, surgical case times, costs, and efficiency performance metrics equaling or exceeding laparoscopy can be achieved.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Robotic surgery is seen by many hospital administrators and surgeons as slower and more expensive than laparoscopic surgery despite the implementation of commonly held robotic best practices. Multiple factors, including surgeon learning curves and program governance, are often overlooked, precluding optimal robotic program performance.
METHODS METHODS
An assessment of several leading robotic surgery publications is presented followed by real-world case studies from two US hospitals: an existing robotic program in a mid-sized, regional hospital system and a small, rural hospital that launched a new program.
RESULTS RESULTS
Improvements in robotic surgery costs/program efficiency were seen at the hospital system vs baseline at 18 months post-implementation; and high-performance robotic efficiency and cost benchmarks were matched or surpassed at the rural hospital at 1 year post-launch.
DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
When best practices are utilized in robotic programs, surgical case times, costs, and efficiency performance metrics equaling or exceeding laparoscopy can be achieved.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32096901
doi: 10.1002/rcs.2098
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e2098

Informations de copyright

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Références

Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1895-1904.
Camberlin C, Senn A, Leys M, De Laet C. Robot-assisted surgery: health technology assessment. KCE Report 104C. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre; 2009. https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/d20091027309.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2019.
Ahmad A, Ahmad ZF, Carleton JD, Agarwala A. Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:55-263.
Abitol J, Cohn R, Hunter S, et al. Minimizing pain medication use and its associated costs following robotic surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144(1):187-192.
Al-Mazrou AM, Baser O, Kiran RP. Propensity score-matched analysis of clinical and financial outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(6):1043-1051.
Bastawrous A, Baer C, Rashidi L, Neighorn C. Higher robotic colorectal surgery volume improves outcomes. Am J Surg. 2018;215(5):874-878.
Wright JD, Anath CV, Lewin SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689-698.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Committee Opinion. “Robotic Surgery in Gynecology,” No. 628; March 2015; Reaffirmed 2017.
Feldstein J, Schwander B, Roberts M, Coussons H. Cost of ownership assessment for a da Vinci robot based on US real-world data. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2019;15(5): e2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2023.
Gkegkes ID, Mamais IA, Iavazzo C. Robotics in general surgery: a systematic cost assessment. J Minim Access Surg. 2017;13(4):243-255.
Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Lahti MC, Lee Y, Benjamin EM, Rothberg MB. Association of corticosteroid dose and route of administration with risk of treatment failure in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA. 2010;303(23):2359-2367.
Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Mamidi DK, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Perioperative beta-blocker therapy and mortality after major noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(4):349-361.
Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(4):778-786.
Nationwide (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS); Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed October 8, 2019.
Soucient® database-Truven health analytics (formerly Thomson-Reuters).
de Joliniere JB, Librino A, Dubulsson J-B, et al. Robotic surgery in gynecology. Front Surg. 2016;3:26.
Taylor C, Miller D, Miliad MP. The impact of surgeon volume on cost of hysterectomy in a tertiary care hospital. JMIG. 2014;21(6):S24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.099.
Committee opinion no. 628: robotic surgery in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(3):760-767.
Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):589-594.
Sgarbura O, Vasilescu C. The decisive role of the patient-side surgeon in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(12):3149-3155.
Stringfield SB, Parry L, Eisenstein S, Horgan S, Kane CJ, Ramamoorthy SL. Ten-year review of robotic surgery at an academic medical center. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(4, suppl 1):S79.
Feldstein J. (2019, August 21). Robotic Disclosure [audio podcast]. https://cavarobotics.podbean.com/e/interview-with-chris-elfner/. Accessed October 8, 2019.
Feldstein J. (2019, May 7). Robotic Disclosure [audio podcast]. https://cavarobotics.podbean.com/e/interview-with-dr-russ-martin/. Accessed October 8, 2019.
Feldstein J. (2019, May 22). Robotic Disclosure [audio podcast]. https://cavarobotics.podbean.com/e/interview-with-dr-rick-feins/. Accessed October 8, 2019.

Auteurs

Josh Feldstein (J)

CAVA Robotics International, LLC, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA.

Herbert Coussons (H)

CAVA Robotics International, LLC, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH