Utilization Trends, Outcomes, and Cost in Minimally Invasive Lobectomy
Affiliations
- PMID: 31400324
- PMCID: PMC6878158
- DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.06.049
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive lobectomy is associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay. However, there have been few published analyses using recent, population-level data to compare clinical outcomes and cost by surgical approach, inclusive of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and hospitalization costs among patients undergoing open, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and RATS lobectomy.
Methods: We identified patients who underwent elective lobectomy in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State Inpatient Database (2008 to 2014). Hierarchical logistic and linear regression models were used to compare in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and index hospitalization costs among cohorts.
Results: We identified 15,038 patients, of whom 8501 (56.5%), 4608 (30.7%), and 1929 (12.8%) underwent open, VATS, and RATS lobectomy, respectively. Robotic-assisted lobectomies comprised less than 1% of total lobectomy volume in 2008, and grew to 25% of lobectomy volume by 2014. Both VATS and RATS lobectomies were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality compared to thoracotomy (VATS odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.94; RATS odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.96; P = .016). After adjusting for patient age, sex, income, comorbidities, and hospital teaching status, VATS lobectomy was 2% less expensive (P = .007) and robotic-assisted lobectomy was 13% more expensive (P < .001) than the open approach.
Conclusions: Minimally invasive approaches were associated to improved clinical outcomes compared with open lobectomy. However, only robotic-assisted lobectomy has had rapid growth in utilization. Despite additional cost, RATS lobectomy appears to provide a viable minimally invasive alternative for general thoracic procedures.
Copyright © 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
- Hospital cost and clinical effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy: A propensity score-weighted comparison.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 May;157(5):2018-2026.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.12.101. Epub 2019 Jan 23.PMID: 30819575 Clinical Trial.
- Readmissions After Lobectomy in an Era of Increasing Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Statewide Analysis.Innovations (Phila). 2019 Oct;14(5):453-462. doi: 10.1177/1556984519874064. Epub 2019 Sep 18.PMID: 31533516
- Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier).J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Mar;147(3):929-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.09.046. Epub 2013 Nov 8.PMID: 24210834 Clinical Trial.
- Robot-assisted surgery for lung cancer: State of the art and perspectives.Lung Cancer. 2016 Nov;101:28-34. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.09.004. Epub 2016 Sep 7.PMID: 27794405 Review.
- The variability of practice in minimally invasive thoracic surgery for pulmonary resections.Thorac Surg Clin. 2008 Aug;18(3):235-47. doi: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2008.06.002.PMID: 18831498 Review.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario