Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1044-1048

  Seideman, Casey A ^a   Sleeper, Joshua P ^a   Lotan, Yair ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PYELOPLASTY; ROBOT ASSISTED PYELOPLASTY; ROBOTICS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; OPERATING ROOMS; OPERATIVE TIME; RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; ROBOTICS;

EID: 84864938456     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0026     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993; 150:1795-1799.
2. Winfield HN. Management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction-is it time for a new gold standard? J Urol 2006;176:866-867.
3. Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 1999;162:692-695.
4. Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol 2009;56:848-857.
5. Sleeper J, Lotan Y. Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedures in urologic surgery in the USA. Expert Rev Med Devices 2011;8:97-103.
6. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:453-458.
7. Mir SA, Cadeddu JA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 2011;25:447-453.
8. Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR. Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Cost analysis. J Endourol 2005;19:327-332.
9. Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 2006;243:486-491.
10. Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS 2005;9:258-261.
11. Franco I, Dyer LL, Zelkovic P. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: Hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis-is there a difference? J Urol 2007; 178:1483-1486.
12. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: Initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002;42:453-458.
13. Weise ES, Winfield HN. Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2006;20:813-819.
14. Descazeaud A, Peyromaure M, Zerbib M. Will robotic surgery become the gold standard for radical prostatectomy? Eur Urol 2007;51:9-11.
15. Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, et al. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 2006;93:553-558.
16. Smith A, Kurpad R, Lal A, et al. Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol 2010;183:505-509.
17. Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, et al. Robotic prostatectomy: A review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 2008;72:15-23.
18. Gettman MT, Lotan Y, Roerhborn CG, et al. Cost-effective treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A decision tree analysis. J Urol 2003;169:228-232.