Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 19–22 | Cite as

Hospital costs and length of stay related to robot-assisted versus open radical and partial nephrectomy for kidney cancer in the USA

  • Jamie E. Anderson
  • J. Kellogg Parsons
  • David C. Chang
  • Mark A. Talamini
Original Article


There are scant national outcomes data for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. We assessed costs and length of stay (LOS) related to robot-assisted radical and partial nephrectomy in a nationally representative population database. We performed a cohort analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Using ICD-9 procedure codes, we identified patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for kidney cancer from October 2008 to December 2008. We excluded patients with non-robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures and those under age 18 years. We performed multivariate analyses of LOS and total hospital charges, adjusting for age, race, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and teaching hospital status. Records of 2,242 patients were analyzed. On adjusted multivariate analysis, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy was associated with shorter LOS compared with open surgery (−2.0 days, P = 0.032). Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with shorter LOS compared with open surgery (−1.8 days, P = 0.077). There were no significant differences in total charges for robot-assisted compared with open surgery for either radical (P = 0.631) or partial (P = 0.713) nephrectomy. In this large, population-based analysis, robot-assisted radical and partial nephrectomy were associated with shorter LOS and equivalent hospital charges compared with their open surgery counterparts. These data suggest that, for renal surgery, diminished LOS offsets other hospital costs associated with robot-assisted procedures.


Robotic Nephrectomy Laparoscopy Renal cell carcinoma Partial Outcomes 


  1. 1.
    Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC, Keating NL (2009) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302:1557–1564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, Faraday MM, Kaouk JH, Leveillee RJ, Matin SF, Russo P, Uzzo RG (2009) Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol 182:1271–1279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eskicorapci S, Teber D, Schultze M, Ates M, Stock C, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: the new gold standard surgical treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma. Sci World J 7:825–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hemal AK, Kumar A, Kumar R, Wadhwa P, Seth A, Gupta NP (2007) Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a long-term prospective comparison. J Urol 177:862–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tan HJ, Wolf JS, Ye Z, Wei JT, Miller DC (2011) Population-level comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open total nephrectomy for patients with kidney cancer. Cancer 117:4184–4193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, Blute ML, Babineau D, Colombo JR, Frank I, Permpongkosol S, Weight CJ, Kaouk JH, Kattan MW, Novick AC (2007) Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178:41–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Permpongkosol S, Bagga HS, Romero FR, Sroka M, Jarrett TW, Kavoussi LR (2006) Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of pathological T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: a 5-year survival rate. J Urol 176:1984–1988 (discussion 1988–1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T, Yohannan J, Hyams ES, Allaf ME (2011) Robot-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology 78(4):813–819. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.065; Epub ahead of printPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG et al (2009) Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 182:866–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Overview of the nationwide inpatient sample (NIS). Accessed March 2 2011
  11. 11.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Alex KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG (1993) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1075–1079 (discussion 1081–1090)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mir SA, Cadeddu JA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y (2011) Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 25(3):447–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie E. Anderson
    • 1
  • J. Kellogg Parsons
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 2
  • David C. Chang
    • 1
  • Mark A. Talamini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Division of Urologic OncologyMoores UCSD Cancer CenterLa JollaUSA
  3. 3.UCSD Division of UrologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  4. 4.Section of SurgerySan Diego Veterans Affairs Medical CenterSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations