The impact of cannabis use disorder on urologic oncologic surgery morbidity, length of stay, and inpatient cost: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 2003 to 2014.

PURPOSE: This study examined the impact of cannabis use disorder (CUD) on inpatient morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and inpatient cost (IC) of patients undergoing urologic oncologic surgery. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2003 to 2014 was analyzed for patients undergoing prostatectomy, nephrectomy, or cystectomy (n = 1,612,743). CUD was identified using ICD-9 codes. Complex-survey procedures were used to compare patients with and without CUD. Inpatient major complications, high LOS (4th quartile), and high IC (4th quartile) were examined as endpoints. Univariable and multivariable analysis (MVA) were performed to compare groups. RESULTS: The incidence of CUD increased from 51 per 100,000 admissions in 2003 to 383 per 100,000 in 2014 (p < 0.001). Overall, 3,503 admissions had CUD. Patients with CUD were more frequently younger (50 vs. 61), male (86% vs. 78.4%), Black (21.7% vs. 9.2%), and had 1st quartile income (36.1% vs. 20.6%); all p < 0.001. CUD had no impact on any complication rates (all p > 0.05). However, CUD patients had higher LOS (3 vs. 2 days; p < 0.001) and IC ($15,609 vs. $12,415; p < 0.001). On MVA, CUD was not an independent predictor of major complications (p = 0.6). Conversely, CUD was associated with high LOS (odds ratio (OR) 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.59) and high IC (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.12-1.59), both p < 0.01. CONCLUSION: The incidence of CUD at the time of urologic oncologic surgery is increasing. Future research should look into the cause of our observed phenomena and how to decrease LOS and IC in CUD patients.

Cost-effectiveness of four living-donor nephrectomy techniques from a hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, transplantation centres use different nephrectomy techniques: open surgery, and standard, hand-assisted and robot-assisted laparoscopies. Few studies have analysed the disparity in costs and clinical outcomes between techniques. Since donors are healthy patients expecting minimum pain and fast recovery, this study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of four nephrectomy techniques focusing on early surgical outcomes, an essential in the donation act. METHODS: A micro-costing approach was used to estimate the cost of implementation from a hospital perspective. Estimates took into account sterilization costs for multiple-use equipment, costs for purchasing single-use equipment, staff and analgesics. The study recruited donors in 20 centres in France. Quality of life by EuroQol-5D was assessed preoperatively, and 4 and 90 days post-operatively. Two effectiveness indicators were built: quality-of-life recovery and post-operative pain days averted (PPDA). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02830568, on 10 June 2010. RESULTS: A total of 264 donors were included; they underwent open surgery (n = 65), and standard (n = 65), hand-assisted (n = 65) and robot-assisted laparoscopies (n = 69). Use of the nephrectomy techniques differed greatly in cost of implementation and immediate post-operative outcomes but not in clinical outcomes at 90 days. At 4 days, hand-assisted laparoscopy provided the lowest cost per quality-of-life recovery unit of effectiveness (%) and PPDA (days) (€2056/40.1%/2.3 days, respectively). Robot-assisted laparoscopy was associated with the best post-operative outcomes but with the highest cost (€3430/59.1%/2.6 days). CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted, standard and robot-assisted laparoscopies are cost-effective techniques compared with open surgery. Hand-assisted surgery is the most cost-effective procedure. Robot-assisted surgery requires more healthcare resource use but enables the best clinical outcome.

Outcomes for urologic oncology procedures: are there differences between academic and community hospitals?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of hospital-based outcomes including costs, 30-day readmission, mortality, and length of stay in patients who underwent major urologic oncologic procedures in academic and community hospitals. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Vizient Database (Irving, Texas) from September 2014 to December 2017. Vizient includes ~ 97% of academic hospitals (AH) and more than 60 community hospitals (CH). Patients aged ≥ 18 with urologic malignancies who underwent surgical treatment were included. Chi square and Student t tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: We identified a total of 37,628 cases. There were 33,290 (88%) procedures performed in AH and 4330 (12%) in CH. These included prostatectomy (18,540), radical nephrectomy (rNx) 8059, partial nephrectomy (pNx) (5287), radical cystectomy (4421), radical nephroureterectomy (rNu) (1006), and partial cystectomy (321). There were no significant differences in 30-day readmission rates or mortality for any procedure between academic and community hospitals (Table 1), p > 0.05 for all. Length of stay was significantly lower for radical cystectomy and prostatectomy in AH (p < 0.01 for both) and lower for rNx in CH (p = 0.03). The mean direct cost for index admission was significantly higher in AH for rNx, pNx, rNu, and prostatectomy. Case mix index was similar between the community and academic hospitals. CONCLUSION: Despite academic and community hospitals having similar case complexity, direct costs were lower in community hospitals without an associated increase in readmission rates or deaths. Length of stay was shorter for cystectomy in academic centers.

Financial burden associated with time to return to work after living kidney donation.

Many living kidney donors undertake a significant financial burden in order to donate. We studied the association between time to return to work and reported financial burden. Kidney donors who donated from 2/2005 through 12/2015 (n = 1012) were surveyed 6 months after donation and asked about occupation, time to return to work, and financial burden (on a 10-point Likert scale). Of 856 donors working for pay, 629 (73%) responded. After adjusting for donor characteristics, increased length of time to return to work was a significant predictor of financial burden (P < .001). It is notable that those in manual/skilled trade occupations, compared with all other occupations, experienced greater financial burden for each week away from work (P = .003). Older age at donation and nondirected (vs directed) donation were associated with significantly decreased financial burden. These observations provide additional information to better inform donor candidates, and further emphasize the need to develop policies so that living kidney donation can be financially neutral.

Active Surveillance Versus Nephron-Sparing Surgery for a Bosniak IIF or III Renal Cyst: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance (AS) versus nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in patients with a Bosniak IIF or III renal cyst. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Markov models were developed to estimate life expectancy and lifetime costs for 60-year-old patients with a Bosniak IIF or III renal cyst (the reference cases) managed by AS versus NSS. The models incorporated the malignancy rates, reclassification rates during follow-up, treatment effectiveness, complications and costs, and short- and long-term outcomes. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to identify management preference under an assumed $75,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) societal willingness-to-pay threshold, using data from studies in the literature and the 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. The effects of key parameters were addressed in a multiway sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of malignancy for Bosniak IIF and III renal cysts was 26% (25/96) and 52% (542/1046). Under base case assumptions for Bosniak IIF cysts, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of NSS relative to AS was $731,309 per QALY for women, exceeding the assumed societal willingness-to-pay threshold, and AS outperformed NSS for both life expectancy and cost for men. For Bosniak III cysts, AS yielded greater life expectancy (24.8 and 19.4 more days) and lower lifetime costs (cost difference of $12,128 and $11,901) than NSS for men and women, indicating dominance of AS over NSS. Superiority of AS held true in sensitivity analyses for men 46 years old or older and women 57 years old or older even when all parameters were set to favor NSS. CONCLUSION: AS is more cost-effective than NSS for patients with a Bosniak IIF or III renal cyst.

Factors associated with perceived donation-related financial burden among living kidney donors.

The perception of living kidney donation-related financial burden affects willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are at higher risk of perceived financial burden. We sought to identify characteristics that predicted higher risk of perceived financial burden. We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016 about socioeconomic characteristics, predonation cost concerns, and perceived financial burden. We tested associations between both self-reported and ZIP code-level characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regression. Donors who perceived donation-related financial burden were less likely to have an income above their ZIP code median (14% vs. 72%, P = .006); however, they were more likely than donors who did not perceive burden to rent their home (57% vs. 16%, P = .03), have an income <$60 000 (86% vs. 20%, P = .002), or have had predonation cost concerns (43% vs. 7%, P = .03). Perceived financial burden was 3.6-fold as likely among those with predonation cost concerns and 10.6-fold as likely for those with incomes <$60 000. Collecting socioeconomic characteristics and asking about donation-related cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support interventions toward potential donors at higher risk of perceiving donation-related financial burden.

Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair, bicenter analysis with cost comparison using time-driven activity-based costing.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To perform a bicenter, retrospective study of perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) and assess costs using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). We identified 355 consecutive patients who underwent RALPN at University of California Los Angeles and the University of Michigan during 2009-2016. We matched according to RENAL nephrometry score, date, and institution for 78 retroperitoneal versus 78 transperitoneal RALPN. Unadjusted analyses were performed using McNemar's Chi-squared or paired t test, and adjusted analyses were performed using multivariable repeated measures regression analysis. From multivariable models, predicted probabilities were derived according to approach. Cost analysis was performed using TDABC. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients treated with retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal RALPN were similar in age (P = 0.490), sex (P = 0.715), BMI (P = 0.273), and comorbidity (P = 0.393). Most tumors were posterior or lateral in both the retroperitoneal (92.3%) and transperitoneal (85.9%) groups. Retroperitoneal RALPN was associated with shorter operative times (167.0 versus 191.1 min, P = 0.001) and length of stay (LOS) (1.8 versus 2.7 days, P < 0.001). There were no differences in renal function preservation or cancer control. In adjusted analyses, retroperitoneal RALPN was 17.6-min shorter (P < 0.001) and had a 76% lower probability of LOS at least 2 days (P < 0.001). Utilizing TDABC, transperitoneal RALPN added $2337 in cost when factoring in disposable equipment, operative time, LOS, and personnel. SUMMARY: In two high-volume, tertiary centers, retroperitoneal RALPN is associated with reduced operative times and shortened LOS in posterior and lateral tumors, whereas sharing similar clinicopathologic outcomes, which may translate into lower healthcare costs. Further investigation into anterior tumors is needed.

Providing Coverage for the Unique Lifelong Health Care Needs of Living Kidney Donors Within the Framework of Financial Neutrality.

Organ donation should neither enrich donors nor impose financial burdens on them. We described the scope of health care required for all living kidney donors, reflecting contemporary understanding of long-term donor health outcomes; proposed an approach to identify donor health conditions that should be covered within the framework of financial neutrality; and proposed strategies to pay for this care. Despite the Affordable Care Act in the United States, donors continue to have inadequate coverage for important health conditions that are donation related or that may compromise postdonation kidney function. Amendment of Medicare regulations is needed to clarify that surveillance and treatment of conditions that may compromise postdonation kidney function following donor nephrectomy will be covered without expense to the donor. In other countries lacking health insurance for all residents, sufficient data exist to allow the creation of a compensation fund or donor insurance policies to ensure appropriate care. Providing coverage for donation-related sequelae as well as care to preserve postdonation kidney function ensures protection against the financial burdens of health care encountered by donors throughout their lives. Providing coverage for this care should thus be cost-effective, even without considering the health care cost savings that occur for living donor transplant recipients.

Patient Function and the Value of Surgical Care for Kidney Cancer.

PURPOSE: Frailty and functional status have emerged as significant predictors of morbidity and mortality for patients undergoing cancer surgery. To articulate the impact on value (ie quality per cost), we compared perioperative outcomes and expenditures according to patient function for older adults undergoing kidney cancer surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using linked SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare data, we identified 19,129 elderly patients with kidney cancer treated with nonablative surgery from 2000 to 2009. We quantified patient function using function related indicators (claims indicative of dysfunction and disability) and measured 30-day morbidity, mortality, resource use and cost. Using multivariable, mixed effects models to adjust for patient and hospital characteristics, we estimated the relationship of patient functionality with both treatment outcomes and expenditures. RESULTS: Of 19,129 patients we identified 5,509 (28.8%) and 3,127 (16.4%) with a function related indicator count of 1 and 2 or greater, respectively. While surgical complications did not vary (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.05), patients with 2 or more indicators more often experienced a medical event (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36) or a geriatric event (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.33-1.81), or died within 30 days of surgery (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.10-1.86) compared with patients with no baseline dysfunction. These patients utilized significantly more medical resources and amassed higher acute care expenditures (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During kidney cancer surgery, patients in poor functional health can face a more eventful medical recovery at elevated cost, indicating lower value care. Greater consideration of frailty and functional status during treatment planning and transitions may represent areas for value enhancement in kidney cancer and urology care.

Minimally invasive vs open nephrectomy in the modern era: does approach matter?

PURPOSE: To evaluate if the widespread adoption of a minimally invasive approach to radical nephrectomy has affected short- and long-term patient outcomes in the modern era. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent radical nephrectomy from 2001 to 2012 was conducted using the US National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program and Medicare insurance program database. Patients who underwent open surgery were compared to those who underwent minimally invasive surgery using propensity score matching. RESULTS: 10,739 (85.9%) underwent open surgery and 1776 (14.1%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive surgery increased from 18.4% from 2001-2004 to 43.5% from 2009 to 2012. After median follow-up of 57.1 months, minimally invasive radical nephrectomy conferred long-term oncologic efficacy in terms of overall (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75-0.95) survival and cancer-specific (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86) survival compared to open radical nephrectomy. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower risk of inpatient death [risk ratio (RR) 0.45 with 95% CI: (0.20-0.99), p = 0.04], deep vein thrombosis [RR: 0.35 (0.18-0.69), p = 0.002], respiratory complications [RR: 0.73 (0.60-0.89), p = 0.001], infectious complications [RR: 0.35 (0.14-0.90), p = 0.02], acute kidney injury [RR: 0.66 (0.52-0.84), p < 0.001], sepsis [RR: 0.55 (0.31-0.98), p = 0.04], prolonged length of stay (18.6 vs 30.0%, p < 0.001), and ICU admission (19.7 vs 26.3%, p < 0.001). Costs were similar between the two approaches (30-day costs $15,882 vs $15,564; p = 0.70). CONCLUSION: After widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches to radical nephrectomy across the United States, oncologic standards remain preserved with improved perioperative outcomes at no additional cost burden.

Robotic and open partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: a matched-pair comparison with a long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the surgical, functional and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) or open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for moderately or highly complex tumors (RENAL nephrometry score ≥7). METHODS: A retrospective, matched-pair analysis was performed for 380 patients who underwent either RPN (n = 190) or OPN (n = 190) for a complex renal mass in different institutions. Surgical data, pathological variables, complications and functional and oncological outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: RPN is associated with less estimated blood loss (EBL) (196.8 vs 240.8 ml; p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (7.8 vs 9.2 days; p < 0.001) and lower rate of postoperative complications (15.8 vs 28.9 %; p = 0.002). Patients undergoing RPN required more direct cost. In multivariable models, surgical approach was the significant predictor for the occurrence of postoperative minor complications and postoperative wound pain. Median follow-up for RPN and OPN was 49 months and 52 months, respectively. The decline of estimated glomerular filtration at the last available follow-up (RPN: 8.7 %; OPN: 10 %) was similar (p = 0.125). The 5-year recurrence-free survival rate was 95.1 % for RPN and 92.7 % for OPN (p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: RPN provides acceptable and comparable results in terms of perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes compared to OPN for complex renal tumors with RENAL score ≥7. Moreover, RPN is a less invasive approach with the benefit of shorter length of hospital stay, less EBL and lower rate of postoperative complications.

Association of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy With Perioperative Outcomes and Health Care Costs, 2003 to 2015.

IMPORTANCE: Use of robotic surgery has increased in urological practice over the last decade. However, the use, outcomes, and costs of robotic nephrectomy are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine the trend in use of robotic-assisted operations for radical nephrectomy in the United States and to compare the perioperative outcomes and costs with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study used the Premier Healthcare database to evaluate outcomes of patients who had undergone robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal mass at 416 US hospitals between January 2003 and September 2015. Multivariable regression modeling was used to assess outcomes. EXPOSURES: Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome of the study was the trend in use of robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. The secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, based on the Clavien classification system, and defined as any complication (Clavien grades 1-5) or major complications (Clavien grades 3-5, for which grade 5 results in death); resource use (operating time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay); and direct hospital cost. RESULTS: Among 23 753 patients included in the study (mean age, 61.4 years; men, 13 792 [58.1%]), 18 573 underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and 5180 underwent robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. Use of robotic-assisted surgery increased from 1.5% (39 of 2676 radical nephrectomy procedures in 2003) to 27.0% (862 of 3194 radical nephrectomy procedures) in 2015 (P for trend <.001). In the weighted-adjusted analysis, there were no significant differences between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in the incidence of any (Clavien grades 1-5) postoperative complications (adjusted rates, 22.2% vs 23.4%, difference, -1.2%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 3.0%) or major (Clavien grades 3-5) complications (adjusted rates, 3.5% vs 3.8%, difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 0.5%). The rate of prolonged operating time (>4 hours) for patients undergoing the robotic-assisted procedure was higher than for patients receiving the laparoscopic procedure in the adjusted analysis (46.3% vs 25.8%; risk difference, 20.5%; 95% CI, 14.2% to 26.8%). Robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with higher mean 90-day direct hospital costs ($19 530 vs $16 851; difference, $2678; 95% CI, $838 to $4519), mainly accounted for operating room ($7217 vs $5378; difference, $1839; 95% CI, $1050 to $2628) and supply costs ($4876 vs $3891; difference, $985; 95% CI, $473 to $1498). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal mass between 2003 and 2015, the use of robotic-assisted surgery increased substantially. The use of robotic-assistance was not associated with increased risk of any or major complications but was associated with prolonged operating time and higher hospital costs compared with laparoscopic surgery.

Health Insurance Trends in United States Living Kidney Donors (2004 to 2015).

Some transplant programs consider the lack of health insurance as a contraindication to living kidney donation. Still, prior studies have shown that many adults are uninsured at time of donation. We extend the study of donor health insurance status over a longer time period and examine associations between insurance status and relevant sociodemographic and health characteristics. We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network registry for all living kidney donors (LKDs) between July 2004 and July 2015. Of the 53 724 LKDs with known health insurance status, 8306 (16%) were uninsured at the time of donation. Younger (18 to 34 years old), male, minority, unemployed, less educated, unmarried LKDs and those who were smokers and normotensive were more likely to not have health insurance at the time of donation. Compared to those with no health risk factors (i.e. obesity, smoking, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60, proteinuria) (14%), LKDs with 1 (18%) or ≥2 (21%) health risk factors at the time of donation were more likely to be uninsured (p < 0.0001). Among those with ≥2 health risk factors, blacks (28%) and Hispanics (27%) had higher likelihood of being uninsured compared to whites (19%; p < 0.001). Study findings underscore the importance of providing health insurance benefits to all previous and future LKDs.

Direct and Indirect Costs Following Living Kidney Donation: Findings From the KDOC Study.

Some living kidney donors (LKDs) incur costs associated with donation, although these costs are not well characterized in the United States. We collected cost data in the 12 mo following donation from 182 LKDs participating in the multicenter prospective Kidney Donor Outcomes Cohort (KDOC) Study. Most LKDs (n = 167, 92%) had one direct cost or more following donation, including ground transportation (86%), health care (41%), meals (53%), medications (36%), lodging (23%), and air transportation (12%). LKDs missed 33 072 total work hours, 40% of which were unpaid and led to $302 175 in lost wages (mean $1660). Caregivers lost $68 655 in wages (mean $377). Although some donors received financial assistance, 89% had a net financial loss in the 12-mo period, with one-third (33%) reporting a loss exceeding $2500. Financial burden was higher for those with greater travel distance to the transplant center (Spearman's ρ = 0.26, p < 0.001), lower household income (Spearman's ρ = -0.25, p < 0.001), and more unpaid work hours missed (Spearman's ρ = 0.52, p < 0.001). Achieving financial neutrality for LKDs must be an immediate priority for the transplant community, governmental agencies, insurance companies, nonprofit organizations, and society at large.

Financial Neutrality for Living Organ Donors: Reasoning, Rationale, Definitions, and Implementation Strategies.

In the United States, live organ donation can be a costly and burdensome undertaking for donors. While most donation-related medical expenses are covered, many donors still face lost wages, travel expenses, incidentals, and potential for future insurability problems. Despite widespread consensus that live donors (LD) should not be responsible for the costs associated with donation, little has changed to alleviate financial burdens for LDs in the last decade. To achieve this goal, the transplant community must actively pursue strategies and policies to eliminate unreimbursed out-of-pocket costs to LDs. Costs should be more appropriately distributed across all stakeholders; this will also make live donation possible for people who, in the current system, cannot afford to proceed. We propose the goal of LD "financial neutrality," offer an operational definition to include the coverage/reimbursement of all medical, travel, and lodging costs, along with lost wages, related to the act of donating an organ, and guidance for consideration of medical care coverage, and wage and other expense reimbursement. The intent of this report is to provide a foundation to inform discussion within the transplant community and to advance initiatives for policy and resource allocation.

Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques in oncology: analysis of English secondary care data for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate postoperative health resource utilisation and secondary care costs for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England, via a comparison of robot-assisted, conventional laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the secondary care records of 23 735 patients who underwent robot-assisted (RARP, n = 8 016), laparoscopic (LRP, n = 6 776) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP, n = 8 943). We further analysed 2 173 patients who underwent robot-assisted (RAPN, n = 365), laparoscopic (LPN, n = 792) or open partial nephrectomy (OPN, n = 1 016). Postoperative inpatient admissions, hospital bed-days, excess bed-days and outpatient appointments at 360 and 1 080 days after surgery were reviewed. RESULTS: Patients in the RARP group required significantly fewer inpatient admissions, hospital bed-days and excess bed-days at 360 and 1 080 days than patients undergoing ORP. Patients undergoing ORP had a significantly higher number of outpatient appointments at 1 080 days. The corresponding total costs were significantly lower for patients in the RARP group at 360 days (£1679 vs £2031 for ORP; P < 0.001) and at 1 080 days (£3461 vs £4208 for ORP; P < 0.001). In partial nephrectomy, Patients in the RAPN group required significantly fewer inpatient admissions and hospital bed-days at 360 days compared with those in the OPN group; no significant differences were observed in outcomes at 1 080 days. The corresponding total costs were lower for patients in the RAPN group at 360 days (£779 vs £1242 for OPN, P = 0.843) and at 1 080 days (£2122 vs £2889 for ORP; P = 0.570). For both procedure types, resource utilisation and costs for laparoscopic surgeries lay at the approximate midpoint of those for robot-assisted and open surgeries. CONCLUSION: Our analysis provides compelling evidence to suggest that RARP leads to reduced long-term health resource utilisation and downstream cost savings compared with traditional open and laparoscopic approaches. Furthermore, despite the limitations that arise from the inclusion of a small sample, these results also suggest that robot-assisted surgery may represent a cost-saving alternative to existing surgical options in partial nephrectomy. Further exploration of clinical cost drivers, as well as an extension of the analysis into subsequent years, could lend support to the wider commissioning of robot-assisted surgery within the NHS.

Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for the prevention of perioperative complications.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and secondarily of laparoscopic PN (LPN) compared to the open procedure. METHODS: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The model was structured as decision tree. The model was populated with published data. We measured intraoperative, postoperative complications, and inhospital deaths. We expressed costs in US dollars ($).The reference analysis calculated the mean cost and the mean number of each endpoint over 5000 iterations using a second-order Monte Carlo simulation. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The mean inhospital costs were $13,186 for RAPN, $10,782 for LPN, and $12,539 for open partial nephrectomy (OPN), respectively. The incremental cost to prevent an inhospital event amounted to $5005 for RAPN compared to OPN. Lower RENAL scores were associated with lower incremental cost per avoided complications. Under assumption of 55 % higher costs in patients with complications, RAPN dominated OPN. LPN dominated OPN. We are aware of the following limitations: First, cost data for patients with and without complications were not available and we assumed the median cost for all cases, i.e., the analysis overestimated the cost associated with RAPN; second, we focused on inhospital estimates and did not apply a societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: RAPN appears to be a cost-effective mean to avoid inhospital complications; however, these results might not apply to low-volume hospitals or to other health care systems.

[Treatment of small renal masses: Effectiveness and cost-comparison analysis]. / Le traitement des petites tumeurs du rein: efficacité et comparaison des coûts.

OBJECTIVE: The stage of discovery and treatment of kidney cancer have changed. Partial nephrectomy is the standard treatment for small renal masses (SRM). Also are recommended the thermal ablative techniques. The cost of these treatments for the establishment and society is often unclear. The purpose of this study was to calculate the cost of treatment of SRM in order to assess the profitability for a health institution that invests in innovation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was conducted with 124 patients treated for SMR (T1a) by open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (LRPN), radio frequency (RF) and cryotherapy (CT) between 2009 and 2011. We calculated the price of stay of each patient, searched the amount billed to health insurance and calculated the profitability of treatment for the establishment. RESULTS: The OPN cost on average 7884±1201€ and reported 451±1861€, the LPN cost on average 6973±3503€ and reported 2271±3370€, the cost of the LRPN was on average 9600±4595€ and resulted in a deficit of 838±3007€. The radiofrequency cost on average 2724±813€ and caused a deficit of 954±684€, cryotherapy cost on average 6702±857€ and resulted in a deficit of 4723±941€. CONCLUSION: According to current repayment terms, the LPN was the treatment of SRM that offered the best profitability.

[Cost comparison of open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in treatment of renal tumor]. / Comparaison médico-économique de la laparoscopie robot-assistée et de la lombotomie pour la réalisation de néphrectomies partielles pour cancer du rein.

INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy rapidly took on among urologists, even though studies showing its superiority over other techniques are still scarce and its costs hard to evaluate, especially in the French medical system. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost overrun of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy compared to that of open partial nephrectomy. EQUIPMENT AND METHODS: From January 2010 to December 2013, 77 patients underwent a partial nephrectomy, 46 of which by robot-assisted laparoscopy and the remaining 31 by lombotomy. The two groups were similar in composition. Economic data regarding the staff, the consumables and the premises involved have been analyzed. RESULTS: Costs are significantly higher in the NPR group (9253.21 euros vs. 7448.42 euros) due to higher consumable expenses as well as the costs pertaining to the amortization and maintenance of the robot. Yet, that difference tends to diminish as the duration of the experiment increases. No significant difference was found in warm ischemia times, operation duration and renal function a month after the operation. On the other hand, patients from the NPR group spent a significantly smaller amount of time in recovery room (159 minutes vs. 205 minutes, P=0.004), presented fewer complications and were discharged faster (6.1 days vs. 8.1 days, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: To be profitable for the hospital in the French GHS system, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy must take place in a complex where at least 300 robot-assisted interventions are performed annually, in the framework of a hospitalization lasting four days or less, the use of a single needle holder and no systematic use of a haemostatic agent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Living and deceased organ donation should be financially neutral acts.

The supply of organs­particularly kidneys­donated by living and deceased donors falls short of the number of patients added annually to transplant waiting lists in the United States. To remedy this problem, a number of prominent physicians, ethicists, economists and others have mounted a campaign to suspend the prohibitions in the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) on the buying and selling of organs. The argument that providing financial benefits would incentivize enough people to part with a kidney (or a portion of a liver) to clear the waiting lists is flawed. This commentary marshals arguments against the claim that the shortage of donor organs would best be overcome by providing financial incentives for donation. We can increase the number of organs available for transplantation by removing all financial disincentives that deter unpaid living or deceased kidney donation. These disincentives include a range of burdens, such as the costs of travel and lodging for medical evaluation and surgery, lost wages, and the expense of dependent care during the period of organ removal and recuperation. Organ donation should remain an act that is financially neutral for donors, neither imposing financial burdens nor enriching them monetarily.