ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Total cost of care of robotic-assisted surgery in an integrated delivery network in Eastern Pennsylvania.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is limited due to several factors including access and cost. Our aim is to evaluate the total cost of care by analyzing key performance indicators and contribution margins of RAS in our healthcare system.
methodsWe included patients > 18 yo who underwent open, laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic-assisted procedures (Robotic) between June 2020 and July 2023. Key performance Indicators included operating room (OR) time, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU admission, conversion to open, 30-day readmission, and surgical site infection (SSI). Contribution margins (CM) and CM/LOS were calculated. Statistical analyses included analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the Chi-square test.
resultsThe total number of addressable procedures was 14,315. Compared to Lap, robotic procedures were associated with significantly shorter LOS, conversion to open rate, and SSI (1 vs 2 days; 1.9% vs 5.1%; and 0.1 vs 1.5%, respectively, p < 0.05). However, we found no difference in 30-day readmission and ICU admission rates. Compared to open, robotic procedures were associated with significantly shorter LOS, 30-day readmission, ICU admission, and SSI rates (2 vs 5 days; 3.8% vs 7.2%; 0.9% vs 22.1%; and 0.2% vs 1.9%, respectively, p < 0.05). For inpatient colon resection, there was no difference in CM among the three groups (p > 0.05). However, CM/LOS was significantly higher for lap compared to open procedures (2929.15 $ vs 1708.97$, p < 0.05). For outpatient cholecystectomy, inguinal and ventral hernias CM were higher in the robotic group compared to the open and lap ones, but the difference was not statistically significant. For RYGB and SG, both CM and CM/LOS were significantly higher for RAS procedures.
conclusionOur study showed that RAS can result in improved clinical outcomes with similar or higher contribution margins suggesting that robotic-assisted surgery can potentially result in lower total cost of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42595908What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.