Activity-Based Cost Analysis of Robotic Anatomic Lung Resection During Program Implementation

While robotic-assisted lung resection has seen a significant rise in adoption, concerns remain regarding initial programmatic outcomes and potential increased costs. We present our initial outcomes and cost analysis since initiation of a robotic lung resection program.Patients undergoing either video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmentectomy (VATS) or robotic-assisted lobectomy or segmentectomy (RALS) between August of 2014 and January of 2017 underwent retrospective review. Patients underwent 1:1 propensity matching based on preoperative characteristics. Perioperative and 30-day outcomes were compared between groups. Detailed activity-based costing analysis was performed on individual patient encounters taking into effect direct and indirect controllable costs, including robotic operative supplies.There were no differences in 30-day mortality between RALS (n = 74) and VATS (n = 74) groups (0% vs 1.4%; P = 1). RALS patients had a decreased median length of stay (4 days vs 7 days; P.001) and decreased median chest tube duration (3 days vs 5 days, P.001). Total direct costs, including direct supply costs, were not significantly different between RALS and VATS ($6621 vs $6483; P = .784). Median total operating costs and total unit support costs, which are closely correlated to length of stay, were lower in the RALS group. Overall median controllable costs were significantly different between RALS and VATS ($16,352 vs $21,154; P = .025).A potentially cost-advantageous robotic-assisted pulmonary resection program can be initiated within the context of an existing minimally invasive thoracic surgery program while maintaining good clinical outcomes when compared with traditional VATS. Process-of-care changes associated with RALS may account for decreased costs in this setting.