Surgical outcomes and cost analysis of a multi-specialty robotic-assisted surgery caseload in the Australian public health system.

This study aims to compare surgical outcomes and in-hospital cost between robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopic and open approaches for benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological patients and to explore the association between cost and surgical complexity. This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing RAS, laparoscopic or open surgery for benign gynaecology, colorectal or urological conditions between July 2018 and June 2021 at a major public hospital in Sydney. Patients' characteristics, surgical outcomes and in-hospital cost variables were extracted from the hospital medical records using routinely collected diagnosis-related groups (DRG) codes. Comparison of the outcomes within each surgical discipline and according to surgical complexity were performed using non-parametric statistics. Of the 1,271 patients included, 756 underwent benign gynaecology (54 robotic, 652 laparoscopic, 50 open), 233 colorectal (49 robotic, 123 laparoscopic, 61 open) and 282 urological surgeries (184 robotic, 12 laparoscopic, 86 open). Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (robotic or laparoscopic) presented with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay when compared to open surgical approach (P < 0.001). Rates of postoperative morbidity were significantly lower in robotic colorectal and urological procedures when compared to laparoscopic and open approaches. The total in-hospital cost of robotic benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological surgeries were significantly higher than other surgical approaches, independent of the surgical complexity. RAS resulted in better surgical outcomes, especially when compared to open surgery in patients presenting with benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological diseases. However, the total cost of RAS was higher than laparoscopic and open surgical approaches.

Cost-analysis of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal malignancy: An Australian perspective with global application.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effective cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treatment of patients with peritoneal malignancy remains an ongoing financial challenge for healthcare systems, hospitals and patients. This study aims to describe the detailed in-hospital costs of CRS and HIPEC compared with an Australian Activity Based Funding (ABF) system, and to evaluate how the learning curve, disease entities and surgical outcomes influence in-hospital costs. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive costing review of all CRS and HIPEC cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from April 2017 to June 2019. In-hospital cost variables included staff, critical care, diagnosis, operating theatre, and other costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the differences between actual cost and the provision of funding, and potential factors associated with these costs. RESULTS: Of the 118 CRS and HIPEC procedures included in the analyses, the median total cost was AU$130,804 (IQR: 105,744 to 153,972). Provision of funding via the ABF system was approximately one-third of the total CRS and HIPEC costs (p < 0.001). Surgical staff proficiency seems to reduce the total CRS and HIPEC costs. Surgical time, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay are the main predictors of total CRS and HIPEC costs. CONCLUSION: Delivery of CRS and HIPEC is expensive with high variability. A standard ABF system grossly underestimates the specific CRS and HIPEC funding required with supplementation essential to sustaining this complex highly specialised service.