“Reply to “robot-assisted resection of choledochal cysts and hepaticojejunostomy in children less than 10 kg.”.”
Adams, S. D., I. Zaparackaite, et al. (2011).
Journal of Pediatric Surgery 46(7): 1470-1471.
“Human Capital Gains Associated With Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children Compared to Open Pyeloplasty.”
Behan, J. W., S. S. Kim, et al. (2011).
Journal of Urology.
PURPOSE: Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is an emerging, minimally invasive alternative to open pyeloplasty in children for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The procedure is associated with smaller incisions and shorter hospital stays. To our knowledge previous outcome analyses have not included human capital calculations, especially regarding loss of parental workdays. We compared perioperative factors in patients who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty at a single institution, especially in regard to human capital changes, in an institutional cost analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 44 patients 2 years old or older from a single institution underwent robotic assisted (37) or open (7) pyeloplasty from 2008 to 2010. We retrospectively reviewed the charts to collect demographic and perioperative data. The human capital approach was used to calculate parental productivity losses. RESULTS: Patients who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty had a significantly shorter average hospital length of stay (1.6 vs 2.8 days, p <0.05). This correlated with an average savings of lost parental wages of $90.01 and hospitalization expenses of $612.80 per patient when excluding amortized robot costs. However, cost savings were not achieved by varying length of stay when amortized costs were included. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children is associated with human capital gains, eg decreased lost parental wages, and lower hospitalization expenses. Future comparative outcome analyses in children should include financial factors such as human capital loss, which can be especially important for families with young children.
“A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.”
Subotic, U., I. Rohard, et al. (2011).
Journal of Pediatric Urology.
OBJECTIVE: Open dismembered pyeloplasty is considered the gold standard to treat ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in children. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) and robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) are increasingly popular. Our present protocol consists of using minimally invasive techniques for all children with UPJO. Here, we report our first 40 cases operated under this protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent LP and RAP for UPJO between 2006 and 2010 was performed. Children younger than 4 years of age underwent LP and children aged 4 years and older with robot assistance. Results were assessed comparing pre- and postoperative imaging studies, operating time, hospital course and complications. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients underwent 41 dismembered pyeloplasties (20 patients LP, 19 patients RAP). No conversions to open surgery were performed. The difference in operative time was statistically significant. The average hospital stay was 7 days (LP) and 6 days (RAP). All patients showed significant decrease of hydronephrosis and the overall success rate was 100%. The complication rate was 25% in the LP and 28% in the RAP group. CONCLUSION: Our data show that RAP and LP are effective to correct UPJO with similar outcomes and complication rates. None of the patients in this series required re-intervention to correct obstruction and the results are comparable with open surgery.
“Human Capital Gains Associated With Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children Compared to Open Pyeloplasty.”
Behan, J. W., S. S. Kim, et al. (2011).
Journal of Urology.
PURPOSE: Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is an emerging, minimally invasive alternative to open pyeloplasty in children for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The procedure is associated with smaller incisions and shorter hospital stays. To our knowledge previous outcome analyses have not included human capital calculations, especially regarding loss of parental workdays. We compared perioperative factors in patients who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty at a single institution, especially in regard to human capital changes, in an institutional cost analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 44 patients 2 years old or older from a single institution underwent robotic assisted (37) or open (7) pyeloplasty from 2008 to 2010. We retrospectively reviewed the charts to collect demographic and perioperative data. The human capital approach was used to calculate parental productivity losses. RESULTS: Patients who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty had a significantly shorter average hospital length of stay (1.6 vs 2.8 days, p <0.05). This correlated with an average savings of lost parental wages of $90.01 and hospitalization expenses of $612.80 per patient when excluding amortized robot costs. However, cost savings were not achieved by varying length of stay when amortized costs were included. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children is associated with human capital gains, eg decreased lost parental wages, and lower hospitalization expenses. Future comparative outcome analyses in children should include financial factors such as human capital loss, which can be especially important for families with young children.