TY - JOUR
T1 - Abdominal and robotic sacrocolpopexy costs following implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery
AU - Baker, Mary V.
AU - Teles Abrao Trad, Ayssa
AU - Tamhane, Prajakta
AU - Weaver, Amy L.
AU - Visscher, Sue L.
AU - Borah, Bijan J.
AU - Klingele, Christopher J.
AU - Gebhart, John B.
AU - Trabuco, Emanuel C.
N1 - Funding Information:
JBG is on the advisory board of UroCure, LLC, and receives UpToDate and Elsevier royalties. ECT receives UpToDate and Elsevier royalties. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest. The statistical analysis was funded by a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology grant.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Objective: To compare perioperative costs and morbidity between open and robotic sacrocolpopexy after implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway. Methods: The present retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing open or robotic sacrocolpopexy (January 1, 2014, through November 30, 2017) used an ERAS protocol with liposomal bupivacaine infiltration of laparotomy incisions. Primary outcomes were costs associated with index surgery and hospitalization, determined with Medicare cost-to-charge ratios and reimbursement rates and adjusted for variables expected to impact costs. Secondary outcomes included narcotic use, length of stay (LOS), and complications from index hospitalization to postoperative day 30. Results: For the total of 231 patients (open cohort, 90; robotic cohort, 141), the adjusted mean cost of robotic surgery was $3239 higher compared with open sacrocolpopexy (95% confidence interval [CI] $1331–$5147; P < 0.001). Rates were not significantly different for intraoperative complications (robotic, 4.3% [6/141]; open, 5.6% [5/90]; P = 0.754), 30-day postoperative complications (robotic, 11.4% [16/141]; open, 16.7% [15/90]; P = 0.322), or readmissions (robotic, 5.7% [8/141]; open, 3.3% [3/90]; P = 0.535). The percentage of patients dismissed on postoperative day 1 was greater in the robotic group (89.4% [126/141] vs. 48.9% [44/90], P < 0.001). Conclusions: Decreased LOS associated with ERAS provided significant cost savings with open sacrocolpopexy versus robotic sacrocolpopexy without adverse impacts on perioperative complications or readmissions.
AB - Objective: To compare perioperative costs and morbidity between open and robotic sacrocolpopexy after implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway. Methods: The present retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing open or robotic sacrocolpopexy (January 1, 2014, through November 30, 2017) used an ERAS protocol with liposomal bupivacaine infiltration of laparotomy incisions. Primary outcomes were costs associated with index surgery and hospitalization, determined with Medicare cost-to-charge ratios and reimbursement rates and adjusted for variables expected to impact costs. Secondary outcomes included narcotic use, length of stay (LOS), and complications from index hospitalization to postoperative day 30. Results: For the total of 231 patients (open cohort, 90; robotic cohort, 141), the adjusted mean cost of robotic surgery was $3239 higher compared with open sacrocolpopexy (95% confidence interval [CI] $1331–$5147; P < 0.001). Rates were not significantly different for intraoperative complications (robotic, 4.3% [6/141]; open, 5.6% [5/90]; P = 0.754), 30-day postoperative complications (robotic, 11.4% [16/141]; open, 16.7% [15/90]; P = 0.322), or readmissions (robotic, 5.7% [8/141]; open, 3.3% [3/90]; P = 0.535). The percentage of patients dismissed on postoperative day 1 was greater in the robotic group (89.4% [126/141] vs. 48.9% [44/90], P < 0.001). Conclusions: Decreased LOS associated with ERAS provided significant cost savings with open sacrocolpopexy versus robotic sacrocolpopexy without adverse impacts on perioperative complications or readmissions.
KW - cost
KW - enhanced recovery after surgery
KW - liposomal bupivacaine
KW - robotic
KW - sacrocolpopexy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85146169022&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85146169022&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ijgo.14623
DO - 10.1002/ijgo.14623
M3 - Article
C2 - 36504261
AN - SCOPUS:85146169022
SN - 0020-7292
JO - International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
JF - International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
ER -