Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:46:02.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Understanding the Market Forces and Opportunity Costs of Robotic Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2017

By
Aaron A. Laviana  and
Jim C. Hu
Edited by
Alan David Kaye  and
Richard D. Urman
Alan David Kaye
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Richard D. Urman
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Perioperative Management in Robotic Surgery , pp. 241 - 248
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Frank, I, Blute, ML, Cheville, JC, Lohse, CM, Weaver, AL, Zincke, H. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol. 2003;170:2217–20.Google Scholar
Barbash, GI, Glied, SA. New technology and health care costs – the case of robot-assisted surgery. NEJM. 2010;363(8):701–4.Google Scholar
Cha, EK, Wiklund, NP, Scherr, DS. Recent advances in robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2011;21(1):65–70.Google Scholar
Cooper, MA, Ibrahim, A, Lyu, H, Makary, MA. Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2015;37(2):133–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghani, KR, Sukumar, S, Sammon, JD, et al. Practice patterns and outcomes of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy since the introduction of robotic partial nephrectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2014;191(4):907–12.Google Scholar
Sivarajan, G, Taksler, GB, Walter, D, et al. The effect of the diffusion of the surgical robot on the hospital-level utilization of partial nephrectomy. Med Care. 2015;53(1):71–8.Google Scholar
Wright, JD, Ananth, CV, Lewin, SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–98.Google Scholar
Yu, HY, Hevelone, ND, Lipsitz, SR, et al. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1392–8.Google Scholar
Smith, JA, Jr, Herrell, SD. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: do minimally invasive approaches offer significant advantages? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(32):8170–5.Google Scholar
Bolenz, C, Gupta, A, Hotze, T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):453–8.Google Scholar
Pappas, TN, Jacobs, DO. Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer – the end of the beginning? NEJM. 2004;350(20):2091–2.Google Scholar
Trinh, QD, Sammon, J, Sun, M, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61:679–85.Google Scholar
Barbash, GI, Glied, SA. New technology and health care costs – the case of robot-assisted surgery. NEJM. 2010;363(8):701–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, JC, Wang, Q, Pashos, CL, et al. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(14):2278–84.Google Scholar
Nguyen, PL, Gu, X, Lipsitz, SR, et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):1517–24.Google Scholar
House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Eighth Report of Session 2012–13, Volume II. 2013: 1–135.Google Scholar
Porter, ME, Lee, TH. The strategy that will fix health care. Harvard Business Review. October 2013: 1–19.Google Scholar
Filson, CP, Hollingswoth, JM, Skolarus, TA, et al. Health care reform in 2010: transforming the delivery system to improve quality of care. World J Urol. 2011;29(1):85–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, RS. Improving value with TDABC. Time-driven activity-based costing presents significant opportunities to enhance quality of care and outcomes while reducing costs- and provides a foundation for value-based payment. Healthcare Financial Management Association. 2014;68(6);76–83.Google Scholar
Abbou, CC, Hoznek, A, Salomon, L, et al. Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol. 2000;10:520–3.Google Scholar
Pate, SC, Uhlman, MA, Rosenthal, JA, et al. Variations in the open market costs for prostate cancer surgery: a survey of US hospitals. Urology. 2014;83(3):626–30.Google Scholar
Birkmeyer, JD, Finlayson, SR, Tosteson, AN, et al. Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 1999;125(3):250–6.Google Scholar
Patti, MG, Corvera, CU, Glasgow, RE, Way, LW. A hospital’s annual rate of esophagectomy influences the operative mortality rate. J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2(2):186–92.Google Scholar
Schrag, D, Cramer, LD, Bach, PB, et al. Influence of hospital procedure volume on outcomes following surgery for colon cancer. JAMA. 2000;284(23):3028–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roohan, PJ, Bickell, NA, Baptiste, MS, et al. Hospital volume differences and five-year survival from breast cancer. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(3):454–7.Google Scholar
Ellison, LM, Heaney, JA, Birkmeyer, JD. The effect of hospital volume on mortality and resource use after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000;163(3):867–9.Google Scholar
Hu, JC, Gold, KF, Pashos, CL, Mehta, SS, Litwin, MS. Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(3):401–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, JC, Gold, KF, Pashos, CL, et al. Temporal trends in radical prostatectomy complications from 1991 to 1998. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1443–8.Google Scholar
Wilt, TJ, Shamliyan, TA, Taylor, BC, et al. Association between hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Urol. 2008;180(3):820–8; discussion 828–9.Google Scholar
Barocas, DA, Mitchell, R, Chang, SS, Cookson, MS. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(3):243–50.Google Scholar
Savage, CJ, Vickers, AJ. Low annual caseloads of United States surgeons conducting radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2677–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, SB, Amarasekera, CA, Gu, X, et al. Influence of surgeon and hospital volume on radical prostatectomy costs. J Urol. 188(6):2198–202.Google Scholar
Nowroozi, MR, Pisters, LL. The current status of gene therapy for prostate cancer. Cancer Control. 1998;5(6):522–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramirez, A, Benayoun, S, Briganti, A, et al. High radical prostatectomy surgical volume is related to lower radical prostatectomy total hospital charges. Eur Urol. 2006;50(1):58–62; discussion 62–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begg, CB, Riedel, ER, Bach, PB, et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. NEJM. 2002;346(15):1138–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FDA clears transoral robotic surgery – developed at Penn – for tumors of mouth, throat and voice box. Penn Medicine News Release 2009. www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/12/tors-robotic-head-neck-surgery/ Accessed January 4, 2016.Google Scholar
Hammoudi, K, Pinlong, E, Kim, S, et al. Transoral robotic surgery versus conventional surgery in treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract. Head Neck. 2015;37(9):1304–9.Google Scholar
de Almeida, JR, Moskowitz, AJ, Miles, BA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of transoral robotic surgery versus (chemo)radiotherapy for early T classification oropharyngeal carcinoma: a cost-utility analysis. Head Neck. 2016;38(4):589–600.Google Scholar
Ran, L, Jin, J, Xu, Y, et al. Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e108361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkner, RM. Rush to robotic surgery outpaces medical evidence, critics say. Managed Care. May 2014. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/2014/5/rush-robotic-surgery-outpaces-medical-evidence-critics-say≥ Accessed January 4, 2016.Google Scholar
Breitenstein, S, Nocito, A, Puhan, M, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched cohort study. Ann Surg. 2008;247(6):987–93.Google Scholar
Park, JS, Choi, GS, Park, SY, et al. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(9):1219–26.Google Scholar
Keller, DS, Hashemi, L, Lu, M, et al. Short-term outcomes for robotic colorectal surgery by provider volume. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(6):1063–9.Google Scholar
Melfi, FM, Menconi, GF, Mariani, AM, et al. Early experience with robotic technology for thoracoscopic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;2(5):864–8.Google Scholar
Park, BJ. Cost concerns for robotic thoracic surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;1(1):56–8.Google Scholar
Park, BJ, Flores, RM. Cost comparison of robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery and thoracotomy approaches to pulmonary lobectomy. Thorac Surg Clin. 2008;18:297–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanson, SJ, Miller, DL, McKenna, RJ Jr, et al. Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(3):929–37.Google Scholar
Hassan, M, Miao, Y, Lincoln, J, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of robotic versus nonrobotic minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. Innovations. 2015;10(2):90–5.Google Scholar
Leyvi, G, Schecter, CB, Sehgal, S, et al. Comparison of index hospitalization costs between robotic CABG and conventional CABG: implications for hybrid coronary revascularization. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016;30(1):12–8.Google Scholar
Kaplan, RS, Porter, ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harvard Business Review. 2011:46–64.Google Scholar
Porter, ME. What is value in health care? NEJM. 2010;363(26):2477–981.Google Scholar
Stout, DE, Propri, JM. Implementing time-driven activity-based costing at a medium-sized electronics company. Management Accounting Quarterly. 2011; 12(3):1–11.Google Scholar
Kaplan, RS, Anderson, SR. Time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review. 2004:131–8.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, N, Burke, MA, Setlur, NP, et al. Time-driven activity-based costing: a driver for provider engagement in costing activities and redesign initiatives. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;37(5):E3.Google Scholar
Laviana, AA, Kundavaram, CR, Tan, H-J, et al. Determining the true costs of treating small renal masses using time-driven activity-based costing. Urology Practice. 2016. Epub ahead of print.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laviana, AA, Ilg, AM, Veruttipong, D. Utilizing time-driven activity-based costing to understand the short- and long-term costs of treating localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2016;122(3):447–55.Google Scholar
Kaplan, RS, Anderson, SR. Time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review. November 2004:131–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Ubel, PA, Asch, DA. Creating value in health by understanding and overcoming resistance to de-innovation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(2):239–44.Google Scholar
Daskivich, TJ, Fan, K-H, Koyama, T, et al. Effect of age, tumor risk, and comorbidity on competing risks for survival in a U.S. population-based cohort of men with prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(10):709–17.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×