Hospital cost and clinical effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy: A propensity score–weighted comparison

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare cost and perioperative outcomes of robotic, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), and open surgical approaches to pulmonary lobectomy. MethodsPatients who underwent pulmonary lobectomy between 2012 and 2017 at a single tertiary referral center were reviewed. Propensity score adjustment by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline patient characteristics. The primary outcomes of the study were direct hospital cost and perioperative outcomes, including operative time, complications rates, and length of stay. Indirect cost and charges were secondary financial outcomes. ResultsA total of 697 patients underwent pulmonary lobectomy by robotic (n = 296), VATS (n = 161), and open thoracotomy (n = 240). In the IPTW-adjusted analysis, open thoracotomy had the shortest mean operating room time (robotic 278 minutes vs VATS 298 minutes vs open 265 minutes, P = .05), and lowest operating room costs (robotic $9,912 vs VATS $9491 vs open $8698, P = .001). Length of stay was significantly shorter after robotic and VATS lobectomy (robotic 3.8 days vs VATS 3.8 days vs open 5.4 days, P < .001), with significantly fewer events of atelectasis and pneumonia as compared with the open group. In sum, no significant differences were seen in IPTW-adjusted direct cost (robotic $17,223 vs VATS $17,260 vs open $18,075, P = .48), indirect cost, or charges for the total hospital stay. ConclusionsRobotic and VATS lobectomy were associated with similar cost and improved clinical effectiveness as compared with the open thoracotomy approach. Increased procedural cost of minimally invasive lobectomy can be recovered by postoperative costs reductions, associated with improved postoperative outcomes and shorter hospital stay.