Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term estimated hospital costs and charges for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in costs and charges. Fifteen comparable cases were reviewed for demographics, surgical information, and estimated hospital charges and costs and then compared with analysis of variance. There were no differences in demographics and surgical variables among the three groups. For estimated hospital charges, minimally invasive sacral colpopexy was most expensive; open was the least expensive approach. The estimated direct costs were significantly higher for robot-assisted compared with open sacral colpopexy, but not different between robot-assisted and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Robot-assisted sacral colpopexy produces the highest estimated hospital charges and is more expensive than open sacral colpopexy. The least expensive surgical approach from the hospital costs perspective is open abdominal sacral colpopexy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY (2001) The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1496–1503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L (2003) Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979–1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly AM, Cundiff G, Weber AM, for the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104:805–823

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Paraiso MF, Walters MD (2005) Laparoscopic surgery for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48:724–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eisenberg JM (1989) Clinical economics: a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 262:2879–2886

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Meemskerk J, de Hoog DENM, van Gemert WG, Baeten CGMI, Greve JWM, Bouvy ND (2007) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1825–1830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI statistics—inflation calculator. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. Retrieved December 12, 2007

  8. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kikuchi I, Takeuchi H, Shimanuki H, Kitade M, Kumakiri J, Kuroda K et al (2008) Questionnaire analysis of recovery of activities of daily living after laparoscopic surgery. J Minimal Invasive Gynecol 15:16–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kluivers KB, Hendriks JC, Mol BWJ, Bongers MY, Bremer GL, de Vet HCW et al (2007) Quality of life and surgical outcomes after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease: a randomized controlled trial. J Minimal Invasive Gynecol 14:145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urogynecology, Hartford Hospital, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, 85 Seymour Street, Suite 525, Hartford, CT, 06106, USA

    Minita Patel & Paul K. Tulikangas

  2. Department of Research Administration, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA

    David O’Sullivan

Authors
  1. Minita Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul K. Tulikangas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minita Patel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Patel, M., O’Sullivan, D. & Tulikangas, P.K. A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 20, 223–228 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0744-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0744-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation