Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar;211(3):610-4.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.11.010. Epub 2015 Dec 23.

The impact of robotic cholecystectomy on private practice in a community teaching hospital

Affiliations

The impact of robotic cholecystectomy on private practice in a community teaching hospital

A Hawasli et al. Am J Surg. 2016 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Recently, through aggressive marketing, robotic cholecystectomy has been gaining popularity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of this technology on private practice and hospital cost and volume.

Methods: From November 2012 to April 2014, all elective cholecystectomies were evaluated for procedure type, operative time (OR), insurance type and payment, hospital length of stay, and volume. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, Student t test and the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: Of 338 patients, 246 had complete financial records. Of these patients, 84.1% (207) patients were female with mean age of 45.4 ± 17.1 years. Patients were divided into 2 groups; group 1: 220(89.4%) patients had laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and group 2: 26(10.6%) patients had robotic cholecystectomy (RC). The mean direct cost was higher in the robotic group $2,704.08 ± 308.40 vs $1,712.51 ± 379.50; P < .0001. The median gross margin; however, was not statically different (RC: $1,593.00 (Interquartile range $3,936) vs LC: $1,726.00 (Interquartile range $1,480); P = .85). Both case time and OR were higher in the robotic group; case time (RC: 121 ± 15.4 vs LC: 98.4 ± 27.5 minutes, P < .0001); OR (RC: 86.6 ± 14.3 vs LC: 63.9 ± 25.9 minutes, P < .0001). There was no appreciable change over time in either surgeon or hospital volume.

Conclusions: There was a statistically significant increase in direct cost in RC vs. LC but not in margin. There was no impact in private practice on the number of cases being done robotically, nor there was an increase in hospital volume. This analysis did not include the purchase cost or maintenance of the robot.

Keywords: Cholecystectomy; Cost; Laparoscopic; Robotic; Volume.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources