Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Heart Lung Circ. 2010 Jul;19(7):413-8. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2010.02.009. Epub 2010 Mar 30.

A cost-analysis study of robotic versus conventional mitral valve repair.

Author information

  • 1Department of Surgery (Monash Medical Centre), Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia.



Robotic mitral valve repair has been performed in Australia since 2004. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-analysis of robotic mitral valve repair (MVR) with direct comparison to conventional MVR surgery.


All isolated MVRs performed within one metropolitan hospital network, between June 2005 and June 2008, were retrospectively compared. Ad hoc cost analysis was conducted.


There were 107 robotic and 40 conventional MVRs performed. The post-operative degrees of mitral regurgitation were comparable. Total operating time was 18% longer in robotic compared to conventional (239 min vs. 202 min, p<0.001, 95% CI: 11-27%). In robotic, Intensive Care Unit stay was reduced by 19% (p=0.002, 37 h vs. 45 h), and length of hospital stay was reduced by 26% (p<0.001, 6.47 days vs. 8.76 days). Mean hospital cost, without including capital costs, was not significantly increased (AUD$18,503 vs. AUD$17,880 p=0.176, 95% CI: -282 to 1,530).


Robotic mitral repair can be performed with similar immediate repair success rates as conventional surgery with a shorter recovery time, but a slightly longer operative time. There is no significant increase in cost over conventional surgery.

Crown Copyright (c) 2010. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk