Prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic vs. open pyeloplasty in children: Single centre contemporary evaluation comparing two procedures over a 1-year period

Authors

  • Katherine Moore Division of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec, Pavillon CHUL, Quebec, QC
  • Armando J. Lorenzo Pediatric Urologist, Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
  • Suzanne Turner Pediatric Urologist, Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
  • Darius J. Bägli Pediatric Urologist, Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
  • Joao L. Pippi Salle Pediatric Urologist, Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
  • Walid A. Farhat Pediatric Urologist, Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.817

Abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopy in pediatric urological surgery continues to gradually gain acceptance. Since economic implications are of increasing importance in our cost-containment environment, few studies have compared the expense associated with open to laparoscopic approaches. We present a prospective comparative cost-analysis between the laparoscopic (LP) and open pediatric pyeloplasty (OP).

Methods: Over a period of a year (2007-2008), 54 consecutives pyeloplasties were performed. The “traditional” OP was performed in 33 patients and the remaining 21 children underwent LP. Costs were prospectively collected for each group and divided based on amounts incurred by all different departments involved: nursing, laboratory, diagnostic imaging, pharmacy and operative room.

Results: Overall, the average cost for a LP was CDN$6240 compared to CDN$5079 for an OP with a median hospital stay of 2 days (range OP: 1-18, LP: 1-7). The main difference was found in operative room expenses (OP: $2508 vs. LP: $3925). The higher cost could not be solely explained by the use of disposable items, which only subtracts $335 per procedure (23.6% of the cost difference between OP and LP). Length of time spent in the operating room was 1.2 hours longer for the LP and appears to be the main factor explaining the cost difference.

Conclusion: Our findings show that at our institution, pediatric LP is more expensive than OP. This cost difference is mainly due to operating room time. For cost-containment purposes, efforts aimed at increasing efficiency in the operating room may help equalize both approaches.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-04-16

How to Cite

Moore, K., Lorenzo, A. J., Turner, S., Bägli, D. J., Salle, J. L. P., & Farhat, W. A. (2013). Prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic vs. open pyeloplasty in children: Single centre contemporary evaluation comparing two procedures over a 1-year period. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 7(3-4), 94–8. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.817

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 3-4 (2013): CUAJ April

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.