开放与机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的两年资源利用:来自optum的去识别clinformatics®数据集市数据库的结果。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Shaun Trecarten, Caroline Schaefer, Ahmed Elshabrawy, Ahmad Abdelaziz, Emad Dalla, Furkan Dursun, Trudy Krause, Michael Liss, Dharam Kaushik, Robert Svatek, Ahmed M Mansour
{"title":"开放与机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的两年资源利用:来自optum的去识别clinformatics®数据集市数据库的结果。","authors":"Shaun Trecarten, Caroline Schaefer, Ahmed Elshabrawy, Ahmad Abdelaziz, Emad Dalla, Furkan Dursun, Trudy Krause, Michael Liss, Dharam Kaushik, Robert Svatek, Ahmed M Mansour","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite increasing adoption of robotic radical cystectomy (RRC), its cost-effectiveness remains in question. Therefore, we aimed to compare 2-year resource utilization (RU) between RRC and open radical cystectomy (ORC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Queried from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, patients diagnosed with bladder cancer who underwent radical cystectomy were identified between 2014 and 2017. Patients with ≥2 years of continuous enrollment were stratified by open and robotic approach. RU was evaluated from incident hospitalization costs and total standardized costs over 2 years for each subsequent inpatient/outpatient visit. Multivariate generalized linear regression (MGLR) was used to determine the impact of surgical approach on subsequent RU.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 2,373 patients were identified. Of patients with continuous enrollment for ≥2 years (N = 1353), 798 (59%) underwent RRC and 555 (41%) underwent ORC. RRC was associated with lower RU than ORC, ($65,188.02 vs. $80,375.90, P < 0.0001) and lower inpatient costs for incident hospitalization ($29,142 vs. $42,329, P < 0.001). RRC, versus ORC, demonstrated shorter median length of hospital stay (5 vs. 7 days, P < 0.0001), and was associated with lower rates of acute kidney failure (3% vs. 5%, P = 0.007), ileus (2% vs. 5%, P = 0.005) and blood transfusions (≤ 2% vs. 6%, P < 0.001). MGLR demonstrated that robotic approach independently reduced total cost (β 0.84, CI 0.77-0.93, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RRC is associated with reduced 2-year RU and incident hospitalization costs compared to ORC. Robotic technique was independently associated with lower total costs. While granular cost metric details are limited, the reduced RU with RRC represents a novel assessment of reduced postoperative morbidity.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two-year resource utilization of open vs. robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Results from optum's de-identified clinformatics® data mart database.\",\"authors\":\"Shaun Trecarten, Caroline Schaefer, Ahmed Elshabrawy, Ahmad Abdelaziz, Emad Dalla, Furkan Dursun, Trudy Krause, Michael Liss, Dharam Kaushik, Robert Svatek, Ahmed M Mansour\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.03.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite increasing adoption of robotic radical cystectomy (RRC), its cost-effectiveness remains in question. Therefore, we aimed to compare 2-year resource utilization (RU) between RRC and open radical cystectomy (ORC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Queried from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, patients diagnosed with bladder cancer who underwent radical cystectomy were identified between 2014 and 2017. Patients with ≥2 years of continuous enrollment were stratified by open and robotic approach. RU was evaluated from incident hospitalization costs and total standardized costs over 2 years for each subsequent inpatient/outpatient visit. Multivariate generalized linear regression (MGLR) was used to determine the impact of surgical approach on subsequent RU.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 2,373 patients were identified. Of patients with continuous enrollment for ≥2 years (N = 1353), 798 (59%) underwent RRC and 555 (41%) underwent ORC. RRC was associated with lower RU than ORC, ($65,188.02 vs. $80,375.90, P < 0.0001) and lower inpatient costs for incident hospitalization ($29,142 vs. $42,329, P < 0.001). RRC, versus ORC, demonstrated shorter median length of hospital stay (5 vs. 7 days, P < 0.0001), and was associated with lower rates of acute kidney failure (3% vs. 5%, P = 0.007), ileus (2% vs. 5%, P = 0.005) and blood transfusions (≤ 2% vs. 6%, P < 0.001). MGLR demonstrated that robotic approach independently reduced total cost (β 0.84, CI 0.77-0.93, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RRC is associated with reduced 2-year RU and incident hospitalization costs compared to ORC. Robotic technique was independently associated with lower total costs. While granular cost metric details are limited, the reduced RU with RRC represents a novel assessment of reduced postoperative morbidity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.03.002\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.03.002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:尽管越来越多的人采用机器人根治性膀胱切除术(RRC),但其成本效益仍然存在问题。因此,我们旨在比较RRC和开放式根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)的2年资源利用率(RU)。方法:从Optum的去识别Clinformatics®数据集市数据库中查询2014年至2017年期间诊断为膀胱癌并接受根治性膀胱切除术的患者。连续入组≥2年的患者采用开放和机器人方法分层。RU从每次后续住院/门诊就诊的事件住院费用和2年内的总标准化费用进行评估。采用多元广义线性回归(MGLR)来确定手术入路对后续RU的影响。结果:共发现2373例患者。在连续入组≥2年的患者中(N = 1353),798例(59%)接受了RRC, 555例(41%)接受了ORC。RRC的RU低于ORC(65,188.02美元对80,375.90美元,P < 0.0001),住院费用较低(29,142美元对42,329美元,P < 0.001)。与ORC相比,RRC显示出更短的中位住院时间(5天vs 7天,P < 0.0001),并且与更低的急性肾衰竭(3% vs. 5%, P = 0.007)、肠梗阻(2% vs. 5%, P = 0.005)和输血(≤2% vs. 6%, P < 0.001)相关。MGLR表明,机器人方法独立降低了总成本(β 0.84, CI 0.77-0.93, P < 0.001)。结论:与ORC相比,RRC可降低2年RU和住院费用。机器人技术与较低的总成本独立相关。虽然粒度成本度量细节有限,但RRC降低的RU代表了一种降低术后发病率的新评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Two-year resource utilization of open vs. robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Results from optum's de-identified clinformatics® data mart database.

Purpose: Despite increasing adoption of robotic radical cystectomy (RRC), its cost-effectiveness remains in question. Therefore, we aimed to compare 2-year resource utilization (RU) between RRC and open radical cystectomy (ORC).

Methods: Queried from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, patients diagnosed with bladder cancer who underwent radical cystectomy were identified between 2014 and 2017. Patients with ≥2 years of continuous enrollment were stratified by open and robotic approach. RU was evaluated from incident hospitalization costs and total standardized costs over 2 years for each subsequent inpatient/outpatient visit. Multivariate generalized linear regression (MGLR) was used to determine the impact of surgical approach on subsequent RU.

Results: About 2,373 patients were identified. Of patients with continuous enrollment for ≥2 years (N = 1353), 798 (59%) underwent RRC and 555 (41%) underwent ORC. RRC was associated with lower RU than ORC, ($65,188.02 vs. $80,375.90, P < 0.0001) and lower inpatient costs for incident hospitalization ($29,142 vs. $42,329, P < 0.001). RRC, versus ORC, demonstrated shorter median length of hospital stay (5 vs. 7 days, P < 0.0001), and was associated with lower rates of acute kidney failure (3% vs. 5%, P = 0.007), ileus (2% vs. 5%, P = 0.005) and blood transfusions (≤ 2% vs. 6%, P < 0.001). MGLR demonstrated that robotic approach independently reduced total cost (β 0.84, CI 0.77-0.93, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: RRC is associated with reduced 2-year RU and incident hospitalization costs compared to ORC. Robotic technique was independently associated with lower total costs. While granular cost metric details are limited, the reduced RU with RRC represents a novel assessment of reduced postoperative morbidity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
7.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信