Abstract
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.