Dergiler / Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association / 2014 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1

A financial analysis of operating room charges for robot-assisted gynaecologic surgery: Efficiency strategies in the operating room for reducing the costs

Sayfa
25–29
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Every effort should be made to shorten the time and reduce the number of instruments used without compromising care.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: To analyse the steps taking place in the operating room (OR) before the console time starts in robot-assisted gynaecologic surgery and to identify potential ways to decrease non-operative time in the OR.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The collected data included the specific terms Anaesthesia Done (step 1),Drape Done (step 2), and Trocar In (step 3), all of which refer to the time before the actual surgery began and OR charges were evaluated as level 3, 4, and 5 for open abdominal/vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy, and robot-assisted hysterectomy, respectively.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Every effort should be made to shorten the time and reduce the number of instruments used without compromising care.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: To analyse the steps taking place in the operating room (OR) before the console time starts in robot-assisted gynaecologic surgery and to identify potential ways to decrease non-operative time in the OR. Material and Methods: Thirteen consecutive robotic cases for benign gynaecologic disease at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) were retrospectively reviewed. The collected data included the specific terms Anaesthesia Done (step 1),Drape Done (step 2), and Trocar In (step 3), all of which refer to the time before the actual surgery began and OR charges were evaluated as level 3, 4, and 5 for open abdominal/vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy, and robot-assisted hysterectomy, respectively. Results: The cost of the OR for 0-30 minutes and each additional 30 minutes were $3,693 and $1,488, $4,961 and $2,426, $5,513 and $2,756 in level 3, 4, and 5 surgeries, respectively. The median time for step 1 was 12.1 min (5.25-23.3), for step 2 was 19 (4.59-44) min, and for step 3 was 25.3 (16.45-45) min. The total median time until the actual operation began was 54.58 min (40-100). The total cost was $6948.7 when the charge was calculated according to level 4 and $7771.1 when the charge was calculated according to level 5. Conclusion: Robot-assisted surgery is already cost-expensive in the preparation stage of a surgical procedure during anaesthesia induction and draping of the patient because of charging levels. Every effort should be made to shorten the time and reduce the number of instruments used without compromising care.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BORAHAY, M. A., KILIÇ, G. S., ÖGE, T., ZEYBEK, B., KILIÇ, C. H. (2022). A financial analysis of operating room charges for robot-assisted gynaecologic surgery: Efficiency strategies in the operating room for reducing the costs. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1, 25–29. https://ajindex.com/articles/568075

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 701-4. [CrossRef] 2.Pasic RP Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C. Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hyster- ectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17: 730-8. [CrossRef] 3.Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 1005-13. [CrossRef] 4.Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI. Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS 2012; 16: 519-24. [CrossRef] 5.Kilic GS, Moore G, Elbatanony A, Radecki C, Phelps JY, Borahay MA. Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Total Laparoscopic and Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy for Benign Pathology during Introduction of a Robotic Program. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011; 2011: 683703. [CrossRef] 6.Kilic GS, Walsh TM, Borahay M, Zeybek B, Wen M, Breitkopf D. Effect of residents’ previous laparoscopic surgery experience on initial robotic suturing experience. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2012; 2012: 569456.[CrossRef] 7.Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 2013; 309: 689-98. [CrossRef] 8.Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP Falcone T. Tubal anastomo- sis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 1375-80.[CrossRef] 9.Visco AG, Advincula AP Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 1369-84. [CrossRef] 10.Behera MA, Likes CE, 3rd, Judd JP Barnett JC, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic- assisted myomectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012; 19: 52-7. [CrossRef] 11.Fagin R. Achieving Efficiency in the Operating Room: Step by Step. In: Hemal AK, Menon M, editors. Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. New York, USA: Springer; 2011.p.51-62. [CrossRef]