Da Vinci and open radical prostatectomy: Comparison of clinical outcomes and analysis of insurance costs

Urologia Internationalis

Volumn 96, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 287-294

  Niklas, Christina ^a   Saar, Matthias ^a   Berg, Britta ^a   Steiner, Katrin ^a   Janssen, Martin ^a   Siemer, Stefan ^a   Stöckle, Michael ^a   Ohlmann, Carsten Henning ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Costs; da Vinci; DRG; Prostatectomy; Reimbursement; Robotic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CATHETER; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH INSURANCE; HOSPITAL READMISSION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPEN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATECTOMY; REIMBURSEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOTIC ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; AGED; CATHETERIZATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECONOMICS; GERMANY; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; CATHETERIZATION; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPERATIVE TIME; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84936970984     PISSN: 00421138     EISSN: 14230399     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000431104     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. DGFU: Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie Der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie Der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms Version 1.03 - März 2011
2. BGRK: Schwerpunktthema: Die akut-stationaere Versorgung des Prostatakarzinoms, 2012. http://presse.barmer-gek.de/barmer/web/Portale/Presseportal/Subportal/Presse informationen/Archiv/2012/120724-Report-Krankenhaus-2012/PDF-Report-Kranken haus-2012, property=Data.pdf
3. Moran PS, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 2013; 20: 312-321
4. Trinh QD, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 679-685
5. Kube R, et al. [Clinical value of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer]. Chirurg 2008; 79: 1145-1150
6. Küper MA, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malign diseases of the digestive system: indications, limitations, and evidence. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 4883-4891
7. Hagen ME, et al. [The da Vinci surgical system in digestive surgery]. Rev Med Suisse 2007; 3: 1622-1626
8. Rassweiler J, et al. Heilbronn laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 54-64
9. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 1389-1402
10. Hagen ME, et al. Impact of IQ, computergaming skills, general dexterity, and laparoscopic experience on performance with the da Vinci surgical system. Int J Med Robot 2009; 5: 327-331
11. Mohr FW, et al. Computer-enhanced robotic cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 121: 842-853
12. Tewari A, et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 1-15
13. Ficarra V, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 418-430
14. Novara G, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 382-404
15. Kowalczyk KJ, et al. Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2012; 30: 85-89
16. Billia M, et al. Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after more than 5 years. World J Urol 2014; 32: 413-418
17. Liu JJ, et al. Perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic compared with open prostatectomy using the national surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP) database. Urology 2013; 82: 579-583
18. Pilecki MA, et al. National multi-institutional comparison of 30-day postoperative complication and readmission rates between open retropubic radical prostatectomy and robotassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using NSQIP. J Endourol 2014; 28: 430-436
19. Davison BJ, Matthew A, Gardner AM. Prospective comparison of the impact of roboticassisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy on healthrelated quality of life and decision regret. Can Urol Assoc J 2014; 8: E68-E72
20. Gandaglia G, et al. Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer?. Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments. J Endourol 2014; 28: 784-791
21. Hu JC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 666-672
22. Ficarra V, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 405-417
23. NNIfHaC: Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment, 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/nice media/live/14348/66226/66226.pdf
24. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason MD, Matveev V, Mottet N, van Der Kwast TH, Wiegel T, Zattoni F. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology, 2013. http://www. uroweb.org/gls/pdf/09-Prostate-Cancer-LR.pdf
25. Froehner M, et al. Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 2013; 90: 312-315
26. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205-213
27. Bolenz C, et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 316-324
28. Cooperberg MR, et al. Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis. BJU Int 2013; 111: 437-450
29. Close A, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK national health service. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 361-369
30. http://www.elsevieranalytics.de/beitragspectrumk-und-das-health-risk-institute/.
31. Li K, et al. Risk factors of positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence of patients treated with radical prostatectomy: a single-center 10-year report. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011; 124: 1001-1005
32. Krebsgesellschaft D. http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/uploads/tx-sbdown loader/LL-Prostata-OL-Langversion-Kon sultation2014.pdf
33. Novara G, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 431-452
34. Ramsay C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16: 1-313
35. Davis JW, et al. Learning curve assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open-surgery controls from the premier perspective database. J Endourol 2014; 28: 560-566