Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The differences between the costs of robotic rectal resection and of the laparoscopic approach are still not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: We conducted an observational, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study on patients having laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection between February 2014 and March 2018 at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). The primary endpoint was to compare cost effectiveness in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY was used as a threshold to determine the most cost-effective treatment. RESULTS: A total of 81 RRR and 104 LRR were included. The mean operative costs were higher for RRR (4307.09€ versus 3834.58€; p = 0.04), although mean overall costs were similar (7272.03€ for RRR and 6968.63€ for the LLR; p = 0.44). Mean QALYs at 1 year for the RRR group (0.8482) was higher than that associated with LRR (0.6532) (p = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ there was a 95.54% and 97.18% probability, respectively, that RRR was more cost-effective than LRR. CONCLUSIONS: Our data regarding the cost-effectiveness of RRR versus LRR shows a benefit for RRR.

First case of complete full robotic surgical resection of leiomyosarcoma of the right renal vein.

BACKGROUND: Leiomyosarcomas present high postoperative morbidity and poor prognosis [1]. In the literature, only few cases of localized small leiomyosarcoma have been described [2, 3]. These cases might benefit from a minimally invasive approach. Robotic surgery has been claimed to have several advantages over laparoscopy such as enhanced vision and instruments movements which might make more feasible the execution of this type of surgery where partial renal resection is required. METHODS: A 53-year-old female with a medical history of myeloid leukemia and with chronic renal failure (creatinine: 2.6) was referred to our hospital for an incidental finding of right perirenal tumor of almost 3 cm compatible with leiomyosarcoma arising from the right renal vein. RESULTS: The operation was performed using a Da Vinci Robotic Surgical System model Si (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).Robotic ports were placed in a standard configuration for minimally invasive right nephrectomy. The dissection started with the partial mobilization of the right liver and Kocher maneuver. After the identification of the inferior vena cava the tumor was finally localized and dissected. Resection ended with a partial right vein resection and suture. Pathological final exam confirmed the diagnosis with margins free from tumor. CONCLUSIONS: In selected cases, robotic resection of leiomyosarcoma might be a safe and feasible procedure in experienced hands.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs.

PURPOSE: The costs involved in performing robotic surgery present a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. The aims of this study are to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer and to conduct a literature review of the cost analysis. METHODS: This is an observational, comparative study whereby data were abstracted from a retrospective database of patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection from October 2010 to March 2017, at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. An independent company performed the financial analysis, and fixed costs were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 86 robotic and 112 laparoscopic rectal resections were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the laparoscopic approach (336 versus 283 min; p = 0.001). The main pre-operative data, overall morbidity, hospital stay and oncological outcomes were similar in both groups, except for the readmission rate (robotic: 5.8%, laparoscopic: 11.6%; p = 0.001). The mean operative costs were higher for robotic surgery (4285.16 versus 3506.11€; p = 0.04); however, the mean overall costs were similar (7279.31€ for robotic and 6879.8€ for the laparoscopic approach; p = 0.44). We found four studies reporting costs, three comparing robotic versus laparoscopy costs, with all of them reporting a higher overall cost for the robotic rectal resection. CONCLUSION: Robotic rectal resection has similar clinical outcomes to that of the conventional laparoscopic approach. Despite the higher operative costs of robotic rectal resection, overall mean costs were similar in our series.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis.

In the last decade, there have clearly been important changes in the surgical approach of gastric cancer treatment due to an increased interest in the minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS). The higher cost of robotic surgery procedures remains an important issue of debate. The objective of the study is to compare the main operative and clinical outcomes and to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the two techniques. This is a prospective cost-effectiveness and clinical study when comparing the robotic gastrectomy (RG) technique with open gastrectomy (OG) in gastric cancer. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The incremental utility was 0.038 QALYs and the estimated ICER for patients was dominated by robotic approach. The probability that the robotic approach was cost effective was 94.04% and 94.20%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY gained. RG for gastric cancer represents a cost-effective procedure compared with the standard OG.

Predictive prognostic value of local and distant recurrence of F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with reference to World Health Organization classifications (2004, 2010). Case series study.

BACKGROUND: F-flurodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) have been claimed to be an important prognostic tool in different malignancies. However, its predictive prognostic value on pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is still under investigation. AIM: We study the prognostic impact of FDG-PET scan in neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors. METHODOLOGY: Between 2007 and 2012, 26 patients with no metastastatic histologically confirmed PNETs (mean age: 57 years) were examined with FDG-PET. We studied its captation in relation with the well established hystopathological prognostic markers assessed in the tumoral resected specimen according to the WHO 2004 and ENETS/WHO 2010 classification. RESULTS: FDG-PET captation was positive in 17 cases (65.4%). The median follow-up period was 34.4 months and recurrences occurred in 4 cases (15.4%). We found a significant correlation between this captation and Ki 67 index (p = 0.032), mitotic index (p = 0.002), tumor grade (p = 0.017) and tumor size (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET provides a good prognostic value for PNETs. Present results must be further validated with larger sample studies.

Preoperative treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is a safe and effective chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, novel chemotherapeutic agents like nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine demonstrated a survival benefit over gemcitabine alone in metastatic pancreatic cancer. However, there are limited clinical results using this chemotherapy in potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Our aim is to report the oncological results of patients affected by potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma that underwent surgery after a combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. METHODS: A total of 25 patients have been included. We evaluated: (1) Drug toxicity; (2) tumoral response (tumoral size at CT scan, SUV of FDG PET-CT scan and CA 19.9; (3) resection rate; (4) R0 resection rate and histopathological response and (5) survival and disease free survival. RESULTS: Overall treatment was well tolerated. Treatment resulted in a statistical decrease of CA19-9 (p = 0.019) tumoral size (p = 0.04) and SUV (p = 0.004). The resection rate was 68% (17/25 patients). All specimens were R0 and 13 of 17 specimens had major pathological regressions (complete and important response). Median survival and medial disease free survival of patients that underwent surgery was 21 months and 19 months, respectively at a mean follow up of 38.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: This data suggests that nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine is a safe and effective neoadjuvant treatment for potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This promising data should be confirmed in larger, randomized studies.

Holoprosencephaly with proboscis.

This is the case of a male newborn with holoprosencephaly, marked hypotelorism, and a rudimentary nasal structure, the proboscis. The head CT scan showed a single monoventricle and two ocular globes fused at the midline. Chromosome studies showed a normal karyotype. The importance of ultrasonography in the prenatal diagnosis of this malformation is presented.