Has the robot caught up? National trends in utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty in the United States from 2003 to 2015.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2010, there have been few new data comparing perioperative outcomes and cost between open (OP) and robotic pyeloplasty (RP). In a post-adoption era, the value of RP may be converging with that of OP. OBJECTIVE: To 1) characterize national trends in pyeloplasty utilization through 2015, 2) compare adjusted outcomes and median costs between OP and RP, and 3) determine the primary cost drivers for each procedure. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Premier database, which provides a nationally representative sample of U.S. hospitalizations between 2003 and 2015. ICD9 codes and itemized billing were used to abstract our cohorts. Trends in utilization and cost were calculated and then stratified by age. We used propensity scores to weight our cohorts and then applied regression models to measure differences in the probability of prolonged operative time (pOT), prolonged length of stay (pLOS), complications, and cost. RESULTS: During the study period 11,899 pyeloplasties were performed: 75% open, 10% laparoscopic, and 15% robotic. The total number of pyeloplasty cases decreased by 7% annually; OP decreased by a rate of 10% while RP grew by 29% annually. In 2015, RP accounted for 40% of cases. The largest growth in RPs was among children and adolescents. The average annual rate of change in cost for RP and OP was near stagnant: -0.5% for open and -0.2% for robotic. The summary table provides results from our regression analyses. RP conferred an increased likelihood of pOT, but a reduced likelihood of pLOS. The odds of complications were equivalent. RP was associated with a significantly higher median cost, but the absolute difference per case was $1060. DISCUSSION: Despite advantages in room and board costs for RP, we found that the cost of equipment and OR time continue to make it more expensive. Although the absolute difference may be nominal, we likely underestimate the true cost because we did not capture amortization, hidden or down-stream costs. In addition, we did not measure patient satisfaction and pain control, which may provide the non-monetary data needed for comparative value. CONCLUSION: Despite an overall decline in pyeloplasties, RP utilization continues to increase. There has been little change in cost over time, and RP remains more expensive because of equipment and OR costs. The robotic approach confers a reduced likelihood of pLOS, but an increased likelihood of pOT. Complication rates are low and similar in each cohort.

Robotic versus open pediatric ureteral reimplantation: Costs and complications from a nationwide sample.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare complications and direct costs for open ureteral reimplantation (OUR) versus robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation (RALUR) in a sample of hospitals performing both procedures. Anecdotal reports suggest that use of RALUR is increasing, but little is known of the outcomes and costs nationwide. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine the costs and 90-day complications (of any Clavien grade) in a nationwide cohort of pediatric patients undergoing OUR or RALUR. METHODS: Using the Premier Hospital Database we identified pediatric patients (age < 21 years) who underwent ureteral reimplantation from 2003 to 2013. We compared 90-day complication rates and cost data for RALUR versus OUR using descriptive statistics and hierarchical models. RESULTS: We identified 17 hospitals in which both RALUR and OURs were performed, resulting in a cohort of 1494 OUR and 108 RALUR cases. The median operative time was 232 min for RALUR vs. 180 min for OUR (p = 0.0041). Incidence of any 90-day complications was higher in the RALUR group: 13.0% of RALUR vs. 4.5% of OUR (OR = 3.17, 95% CI: 1.46-6.91, p = 0.0037). The difference remained significant in a multivariate model accounting for clustering among hospitals and surgeons (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.46-6.75; p = 0.0033) (Figure). The median hospital cost for OUR was $7273 versus $9128 for RALUR (p = 0.0499), and the difference persisted in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0043). Fifty-one percent (55/108) of the RALUR cases occurred in 2012-2013. DISCUSSION: We present the first nationwide sample comparing RALUR and OUR in the pediatric population. There is currently wide variation in the probability of complication reported in the literature. Some variability may be due to differential uptake and experience among centers as they integrate a new procedure into their practice, while some may be due to reporting bias. A strength of the current study is that cost and 90-day postoperative complication data are collected at participating hospitals irrespective of outcomes, providing some immunity from the reporting bias to which individual center surgical series' may be susceptible. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OUR, RALUR was associated with a significantly higher rate of complications as well as higher direct costs even when adjusted for demographic and regional factors. These findings suggest that RALUR should be implemented with caution, particularly at sites with limited robotic experience, and that outcomes for these procedures should be carefully and systematically tracked.

National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty.

PURPOSE: We performed a population based study comparing trends in perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. Specific billing items contributing to cost were also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Perspective database (Premier, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina), we identified 12,662 pediatric patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty (ICD-9 55.87) in the United States from 2003 to 2010. Univariate and multivariate statistics were used to evaluate perioperative outcomes, complications and costs for the competing surgical approaches. Propensity weighting was used to minimize selection bias. Sampling weights were used to yield a nationally representative sample. RESULTS: A decrease in open pyeloplasty and an increase in minimally invasive pyeloplasty were observed. All procedures had low complication rates. Compared to open pyeloplasty, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty had longer median operative times (240 minutes, p <0.0001 and 270 minutes, p <0.0001, respectively). There was no difference in median length of stay. Median total cost was lower among patients undergoing open vs robotic pyeloplasty ($7,221 vs $10,780, p <0.001). This cost difference was largely attributable to robotic supply costs. CONCLUSIONS: During the study period open pyeloplasty made up a declining majority of cases. Use of laparoscopic pyeloplasty plateaued, while robotic pyeloplasty increased. Operative time was longer for minimally invasive pyeloplasty, while length of stay was equivalent across all procedures. A higher cost associated with robotic pyeloplasty was driven by operating room use and robotic equipment costs, which nullified low room and board cost. This study reflects an adoption period for robotic pyeloplasty. With time, perioperative outcomes and cost may improve.