In “Robotic Compared With Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial” by J. T. Anger, E. R. Mueller, C. Tarnay, B. Smith, K. Stroupe, A. Rosenman, L. Brubaker, C. Bresee, and K. Kenton (Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:5–12), some of the results reported in the article were incorrect owing to a mistaken calculation.
In the original article, it was reported that the average purchase price of a robot at each site was $1,838,140, and annual maintenance costs were $153,000 per year. The number of uses per year per robot averaged 300 across study sites. Accounting for an annuity factor and resale value and trade-in of $200,000 for 7 years of use, the equivalent annual cost was reported as $7,030 per procedure. With this reported cost per procedure for the robot, the initial day of surgery hospital costs for robotic sacrocolpopexy were $8,043 higher than for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy when robotic costs were included ($19,616 compared $11,573; P<.001, Table 2), and over 6 weeks, hospital costs were $8,728 higher for robotic sacrocolpopexy when robotic costs were included ($20,898 compared with $12,170; P<.001).
It was discovered that an incorrect annuity factor was used in the original calculation of the equivalent annual cost of the robot. With the correct annuity factor, the equivalent annual cost of the robot was $1,406 per procedure. With the corrected cost per procedure for the robot, the initial day of surgery hospital costs for robotic sacrocolpopexy were $2,419 higher when robotic costs were included ($13,992 compared with $11,573; P=.001, Corrected Table 2), and over 6 weeks, hospital costs were $3,104 higher for robotic sacrocolpopexy when robotic costs were included ($15,274 compared with $12,170; P<.001, Corrected Table 2). Both the initial and 6-week costs remain significantly higher for robotic sacrocolpopexy when robotic costs were included; however, the magnitude of the initial cost difference was reduced from $8,043 to $2,419, and the magnitude of the 6-week cost difference was reduced from $8,728 to $3,104 when the cost per procedure with the corrected annuity factor was used.
A corrected Table 2 is published on this page. In addition, the data and other supporting files are available online (data are available at http://links.lww.com/AOG/A526; SAS code to generate the results is available at http://links.lww.com/AOG/A527 and http://links.lww.com/AOG/A528; the output file from the SAS code is available at http://links.lww.com/AOG/A529; a description of how to run the SAS program and a description of the data are available at http://links.lww.com/AOG/A530).
The authors regret this error.
In “A Practical Approach to Fetal Growth Restriction” by J. A. Copel and M. O. Bahtiyar (Obstet Gynecol 2014;123-1057–69), the legend for Figure 6 contains an error. “UA” is incorrectly defined as “uterine artery,” when it should read, “umbilical artery.” The correct legend is: “Fig. 6. Management recommendation for fetal growth restriction incorporating Doppler velocimetry. aIn conjunction with antepartum testing. IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction; UA, umbilical artery. Reprinted from Berkley E, Chauhan SP, Abuhamad A. Doppler assessment of the fetus with intrauterine growth restriction. AJOG 2012;206:300–8. Copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier.”