Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 26, 2026
11:07
Robotic-assisted Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy for Chronic Pancreatitis
Published on: September 5, 2025
Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis
Christopher S Elliott1, Michael H Hsieh, Eric R Sokol
1Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
The Journal of Urology
|December 20, 2011
Summary
Robot-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy offers cost savings compared to open surgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Cost-effectiveness hinges on institutional robotic case volume and reduced postoperative length of stay.
Area of Science:
- Urogynecology
- Minimally Invasive Surgery
- Health Economics
Background:
- Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is a standard surgical treatment for apical vaginal vault prolapse.
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus open surgical approaches is crucial for clinical decision-making.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy with the traditional open approach.
- To identify key factors influencing the economic outcomes of each surgical method.
Main Methods:
- A cost-minimization analysis was conducted on a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy.
- Sensitivity analysis and hospital billing data were utilized to determine threshold values and confirm findings.
Main Results:
- Operative times were comparable between robotic and open procedures (226 vs. 221 minutes).
- Robot-assisted surgery demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative length of stay (1.0 vs. 3.3 days).
- Base case analysis showed a 10% cost saving for robotic sacrocolpopexy ($10,178 vs. $11,307), with hospital billing data confirming a 4.2% lower cost.
Conclusions:
- Robot-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy can be as cost-effective or more cost-effective than the open approach.
- Sufficient annual institutional robotic case volume and a shorter postoperative stay are critical determinants of cost-effectiveness.
