Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Modified 1-Layer versus Formal 2-Layer Vasovasostomy Technique.

PURPOSE: Approximately 2% to 6% of men undergoing vasectomy will ultimately have it reversed. Cost is a major consideration for patients and providers with regard to vasovasostomy. Opportunities for cost savings for vasectomy reversal lie in the reduction of variable costs, namely operative time and materials used. In this study we determine the cost benefits of a modified 1-layer vasovasostomy compared to a formal 2-layer vasovasostomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of a single surgeon experience of vasectomy reversals performed from 2010 to 2015. The cohort consisted of men who underwent bilateral vasovasostomy using a formal 2-layer or modified 1-layer technique. The primary end points of the analysis were total operative time; number, cost and type of suture used; and patency/postoperative semen analysis. Bivariate analysis was performed for these continuous variables using the Wilcoxon rank test and the chi-square test was used for categorical variables. RESULTS: Of the 106 men who underwent bilateral vasovasostomy 81.1% (86) had a formal and 18.9% (20) had a modified 1-layer repair. The modified 1-layer closure resulted in a significantly shorter operative time, lower microsuture cost and lower overall operative cost compared to formal repair (all p <0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in semen parameters between the 2 techniques at the first postoperative visit. CONCLUSIONS: The modified 1-layer vasovasostomy resulted in shorter operative times and lower costs compared to formal repair without compromising postoperative patency. In this era of cost containment the modified repair provides the opportunity to perform vasectomy reversal at a lower cost to patients and providers.

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: current status, techniques, and future directions.

Open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal masses (SRMs) concerning for renal cell carcinoma has been increasingly utilized with the increased incidental detection of SRMs and the growing recognition of the benefits of renal preservation. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is a minimally invasive technique that achieves comparable oncologic and improved morbidity outcomes when compared to the open procedure. However, LPN is a technically demanding procedure resulting in a long learning curve and a lack of widespread adoption. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) overcomes many of the technical hurdles of the LPN and is now coming to the forefront for the minimally invasive surgical management of SRMs. To date, the short-term oncologic outcomes of RAPN have been comparable to the open operation while providing the improved morbidity outcomes of LPN. Although encouraging, we await the long-term oncologic results of this new and promising procedure. The current bottleneck is an issue of cost and reliance on a patient-side surgeon. Future developments in instrumentation, newer robots, cost reduction, more streamlined training, increased robotic experience, and adoption by more centers will lead to greater benefit for patients with SRMs requiring nephron-sparing surgery. This review will discuss techniques for RAPN and then delve into the current status of RAPN using parameters such as warm ischemia time, blood loss, hospital stay, oncological outcomes, complications, learning curve, and quality of life. There will be an exploration of potential disadvantages associated with RAPN followed by a look at evolving techniques in regard to this groundbreaking procedure.