Abstract
Background
Studies of robotic lobectomy (Robot-L) have been performed using data from high-volume, specialty centers which may not be generalizable. The purpose of this study was to compare mortality, length of stay (LOS), and cost between Robot-L and thoracoscopic lobectomy (VATS-L) using a nationally representative database hypothesizing they would be similar.
Methods
The Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify patients receiving elective lobectomy for lung cancer from 2009 to 2019. Patients were categorized as receiving Robot-L or VATS-L using ICD-9/10 codes. Survey methodology and patient level weighting were used to correct for sampling error and estimation of a nationally representative sample. A propensity match analysis was performed to reduce bias between the groups. Primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were LOS and patient charges.
Results
Among 62 698 patients, 19 506 (31.1%) underwent Robot-L and 43 192 (68.9%) underwent VATS-L. Differences between the groups included age, race, comorbidities, and insurance type. A propensity matched cohort demonstrated similar in-hospital mortality for Robot-L and VATS-L (.9% vs .9%, respectively, P = .91). Patients who underwent Robot-L had a shorter LOS (4 vs 5d, respectively, P < .001) but higher patient charges (90 593.0 vs 72 733.3 USD, respectively, P < .001).
Conclusions
In a nationally representative database, Robot-L and VATS-L had similar mortality. Although Robot-L was associated with shorter hospitalization, it was also associated with excess charges of almost $20,000. As Robot-L is now the most common approach for lobectomy in the U.S., further study into the cost and benefit of robotic surgery is warranted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
