Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
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. jkam.research@gmail.com

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

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.

METHODS:

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

RESULTS:

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).

CONCLUSIONS:

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.

PMID:
20356784
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

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