Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different types of radical nephrectomy (RN) techniques: open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAMS). Materials and Methods: Among patients who were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma and underwent RN, 20 patients were selected who received open, laparoscopic, robot- assisted laparoscopic, or VAMS RN between January 2008 and December 2010. Their medical fees were divided into four categories: procedure and operation, anesthesia, laboratory test, and medical supply fees. The medical costs of the patients were also divided into insured and uninsured costs. Results: The total direct cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN were 2,023,791±240,757, 2,024,246±674,859 (p=0.998), 3,603,557±870,333 (p < 0.01), and 8,021,902±330,157 (p < 0.01) Korean Won (KRW, the currency of South Koea), respectively. The total insured cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN was 1,904,627±231,957, 1,798,127±645,602 (p=0.634), 3,039,769 ±711,792 (p < 0.01), and 899,668±323,508 (p < 0.01) KRW, respectively. The total uninsured cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN was 119,163±24,581, 226,119±215,009, 563,788±487,798 (p < 0.01), and 7,122,234±56,117 (p < 0.01) KRW, respectively. Medical supply fees accounted for the largest portion of the costs and amounted to 33.43% of the VAMS cost. Conclusions: VAMS RN is as cost-effective as open surgery. Furthermore, it is comparatively more cost-effective than laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 519-523 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Korean Journal of Urology |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2012 Jan 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Urology
Cite this
}
Cost aspects of radical nephrectomy for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma in Korea : Open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy surgeries. / Park, Jae Won; Choi, Kyung Hwa; Yang, Seung Choul; Han, WoongKyu.
In: Korean Journal of Urology, Vol. 53, No. 8, 01.01.2012, p. 519-523.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost aspects of radical nephrectomy for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma in Korea
T2 - Open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy surgeries
AU - Park, Jae Won
AU - Choi, Kyung Hwa
AU - Yang, Seung Choul
AU - Han, WoongKyu
PY - 2012/1/1
Y1 - 2012/1/1
N2 - Purpose: This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different types of radical nephrectomy (RN) techniques: open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAMS). Materials and Methods: Among patients who were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma and underwent RN, 20 patients were selected who received open, laparoscopic, robot- assisted laparoscopic, or VAMS RN between January 2008 and December 2010. Their medical fees were divided into four categories: procedure and operation, anesthesia, laboratory test, and medical supply fees. The medical costs of the patients were also divided into insured and uninsured costs. Results: The total direct cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN were 2,023,791±240,757, 2,024,246±674,859 (p=0.998), 3,603,557±870,333 (p < 0.01), and 8,021,902±330,157 (p < 0.01) Korean Won (KRW, the currency of South Koea), respectively. The total insured cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN was 1,904,627±231,957, 1,798,127±645,602 (p=0.634), 3,039,769 ±711,792 (p < 0.01), and 899,668±323,508 (p < 0.01) KRW, respectively. The total uninsured cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN was 119,163±24,581, 226,119±215,009, 563,788±487,798 (p < 0.01), and 7,122,234±56,117 (p < 0.01) KRW, respectively. Medical supply fees accounted for the largest portion of the costs and amounted to 33.43% of the VAMS cost. Conclusions: VAMS RN is as cost-effective as open surgery. Furthermore, it is comparatively more cost-effective than laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN.
AB - Purpose: This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different types of radical nephrectomy (RN) techniques: open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAMS). Materials and Methods: Among patients who were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma and underwent RN, 20 patients were selected who received open, laparoscopic, robot- assisted laparoscopic, or VAMS RN between January 2008 and December 2010. Their medical fees were divided into four categories: procedure and operation, anesthesia, laboratory test, and medical supply fees. The medical costs of the patients were also divided into insured and uninsured costs. Results: The total direct cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN were 2,023,791±240,757, 2,024,246±674,859 (p=0.998), 3,603,557±870,333 (p < 0.01), and 8,021,902±330,157 (p < 0.01) Korean Won (KRW, the currency of South Koea), respectively. The total insured cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN was 1,904,627±231,957, 1,798,127±645,602 (p=0.634), 3,039,769 ±711,792 (p < 0.01), and 899,668±323,508 (p < 0.01) KRW, respectively. The total uninsured cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN was 119,163±24,581, 226,119±215,009, 563,788±487,798 (p < 0.01), and 7,122,234±56,117 (p < 0.01) KRW, respectively. Medical supply fees accounted for the largest portion of the costs and amounted to 33.43% of the VAMS cost. Conclusions: VAMS RN is as cost-effective as open surgery. Furthermore, it is comparatively more cost-effective than laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865362362&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865362362&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4111/kju.2012.53.8.519
DO - 10.4111/kju.2012.53.8.519
M3 - Article
VL - 53
SP - 519
EP - 523
JO - Korean Journal of Urology
JF - Korean Journal of Urology
SN - 2005-6737
IS - 8
ER -