Search

Purpose: To compare cost of percutaneous cryoablation vs open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy of T1a renal masses from the hospital perspective., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively compared cost, clinical and tumor data of 37 percutaneous cryoablations to 26 open and 102 robot-assisted partial nephrectomies. Total cost was the sum of direct and indirect cost of procedural and periprocedural variables. Clinical data included demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), hospitalization time, complication rate, ICU admission rate, and 30-day readmission rates. Tumor data included size, RENAL nephrometry score, and malignancy rate. Student's t-test was used for continuous variables and Fisher's exact or chi-square tests for categorical data., Results: Mean total cost was lower for percutaneous cryoablation than open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: $6067 vs $11392 or $11830 (p<0.0001) with lower cost of procedure room: $1516 vs $3272 or $3254 (p<0.0001), room and board: $95 vs $1907 or $1106 (p<0.0001), anesthesia: $684 vs $1223 or $1468 (p<0.0001), and laboratory/pathology fees: $205 vs $804 or $720 (p<0.0001). Supply and device cost was higher than open: $2596 vs $1352 (p<0.0001), but lower than robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: $3207 (p=0.002). Mean hospitalization times were lower for percutaneous cryoablation (p<0.0001), while age and CCI were higher (p<0.0001). No differences in tumor size, nephrometry score, malignancy rate complication, ICU, or 30-day readmission rates were observed., Conclusion: Percutaneous cryoablation can be performed at significantly lower cost than open and robotic partial nephrectomies for similar masses.

Cryoablation of renal masses is an evolving in situ ablative technique for the management of localized renal masses and can be performed in a laparoscopic or percutaneous manner. Its usefulness is increasing and correlates with the increasing frequency of incidentally diagnosed renal lesions. At present, this technique has been applied to patients deemed to be poor surgical candidates for extirpative therapy or those with a strong desire to avoid surgery, at least until long-term data become available to fully evaluate its cancer-control effectiveness. In addition, as costs become an ever more critical factor in healthcare, the costs of various management options for clinically localized kidney cancer will become as important as clinical outcomes in deciding appropriate treatment. We compare laparoscopic and percutaneous renal cryoablation from a cost perspective. Our findings indicate that percutaneous renal cryoablation may have distinct cost advantages over its laparoscopic counterpart. It remains to be seen whether these differences will translate into an overall increase in reliance on the percutaneous approach for renal cryoablation.