Light and shadow of watch-and-wait strategy in rectal cancer: oncological result, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The watch-and-wait (WW) strategy is a potential option for patients with rectal cancer who obtain a complete clinic response after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study is to analyze the long-term oncological outcomes and perform a cost-effectiveness analysis in patients undergoing this strategy for rectal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data of patients treated with the WW strategy were prospectively collected from January 2015 to January 2020. A control group was created, matched 1:1 from a pool of 480 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. An independent company carried out the financial analysis. Clinical and oncological outcomes were analyzed in both groups. Outcome parameters included surgical and follow-up costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Forty patients were included in the WW group, with 40 patients in the surgical group. During a median follow-up period of 36 months, metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar in the two groups. In the WW group, nine (22%) local regrowths were detected in the first 2 years. The permanent stoma rate was slightly higher after salvage surgery in the WW group compared to the surgical group (48.5% vs 20%, p < 0.01). The cost-effectiveness analysis was slightly better for the WW group, especially for low rectal cancer compared to medium-high rectal cancer (ICER = - 108,642.1 vs ICER = - 42,423). CONCLUSIONS: The WW strategy in locally advanced rectal cancer offers similar oncological outcomes with respect to the surgical group and excellent results in quality of life and cost outcomes, especially for low rectal cancer. Nonetheless, the complex surgical field during salvage surgery can lead to a high permanent stoma rate; therefore, the careful selection of patients is mandatory.

Can 3D imaging modeling recognize functional tissue and predict liver failure? A retrospective study based on 3D modelling of the major hepatectomies after hepatic modulation.

BACKGROUND: Thanks to the introduction of radiomics, 3d reconstruction can be able to analyse tissues and recognise true hypertrophy from non-functioning tissue in patients treated with major hepatectomies with hepatic modulation.The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of 3D Imaging Modelling in predict liver failure. METHODS: Patients submitted to major hepatectomies after hepatic modulation at Sanchinarro University Hospital from May 2015 to October 2019 were analysed. Three-dimensional reconstruction was realised before and after surgical treatment. The volumetry of Future Liver Remnant was calculated, distinguishing in Functional Future Liver Remnant (FRFx) i.e. true hypertrophy tissue and Anatomic Future Liver Remnant (FRL) i.e. hypertrophy plus no functional tissue (oedema/congestion) These volumes were analysed in patients with and without post hepatic liver failure. RESULTS: Twenty-four procedures were realised (11 ALPPS and 13 PVE followed by major hepatectomy). Post hepatic liver failure grade B and C occurred in 6 patients. The ROC curve showed a better AUC for FRFxV (74%) with respect to FRLV (54%) in prediction PHLF > B. The increase of anatomical FRL (iFRL) was superior in the ALPPS group (120%) with respect to the PVE group (73%) (p = 0,041), while the increase of functional FRFX (iFRFx) was 35% in the ALLPS group and 46% in the PVE group (p > 0,05), showing no difference in the two groups. CONCLUSION: The 3D reconstruction model can allow optimal surgical planning, and through the use of specific algorithms, can contribute to differential functioning liver parenchyma of the FLR.

Closed hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with CO2 recirculation system compared with the open Coliseum technique in peritoneal malignity treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis can be performed in two ways: first, the standard open abdominal technique (Open HIPEC); or second, the closed technique. In recent years, a new technique has been introduced to perform closed HIPEC; the Peritoneal Recirculation System (PRS-1.0 Combat) with CO2 recirculation technology (PRS Closed HIPEC). The objective of this study is to present our experience with the PRS Closed HIPEC by comparing the intraoperative, postoperative and oncological results with the standard Open HIPEC technique (the Coliseum technique). METHODS: Data on patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid from October 2012 to June 2021 were collected in a prospective database. The inclusion criteria were patients with primary or recurrent peritoneal metastases in gastrointestinal malignancies or ovarian cancer. The presence of an unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis, the coexistence of another oncological disease, unresectable and distant metastases were the exclusion criteria. RESULTS: From October 2014 to June 2021, 84 patients underwent CRS and HIPEC at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid with curative intent. Since the introduction of the PRS Closed HIPEC technique in 2016, 65 patients have been treated. Before the introduction of PRS Closed HIPEC, 19 cases were performed using the Coliseum technique (the Open HIPEC group). The intraoperative results were similar in the two groups. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in all cases in the Open HIPEC group and in 98% in the PRS Closed HIPEC group. The rate of major complications was similar between the groups. Median Overall Survival (OS) resulted better in the Closed HIPEC group (67 months) with respecto to the Open group (43 months) (p < 0,001). Median Disease-Free Survival (DFS) was 15 months in the Open HIPEC group and 40 months in the PRS Closed HIPEC group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Peritoneal Recirculation System with CO2 recirculation technology (PRS Closed HIPEC) is a reproducible and safe technique and may represent a valid alternative for the administration of HIPEC.

Giant fibrovascular polyps of the esophagus. Trans oral versus surgical approach. Case report and systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Giant fibrovascular esophageal polyp is a rare benign intraluminal tumour. The aim of this study is to perform a review of the most recent literature in order to describe and analyse the current range of possible diagnostics and treatment strategies. CASE REPORT: We present two cases of giant fibrovascular esophageal polyp treated with a combined minimally invasive transluminal approach at Sanchinarro University Hospital. Further, we perform a literature review. CONCLUSION: We present two cases of grant fibrovascular polyp submitted to minimally invasive transluminal approach. Furthermore, 54 original articles reporting 59 cases have been analysed. In the surgical group, an esophagotomy and polyp resection were performed in 31 (91 %) patients and a total esophagectomy in two patients (5,8 %). Severe morbidity occurred in two patients (5,8 %.) The median hospital stay was 9.25 days. A total of two (5,8 %) cases of recurrence have been registered. In the minimally invasive transluminal approach group, 27 patients had a polyp resection performed completely by endoscopy/transoral. There were no complications but there was one case of recurrence. CONCLUSION: The transluminal approach is safe and should be considered also in the treatment of large esophageal polyps.

Case-matched analysis of robotic versus open surgical enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A comparative cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Enucleation has widely spread as an alternative strategy in the treatment of small pancreatic tumours and cystic lesions. To date there are limited data on perioperative outcomes after pancreatic enucleation performed using a minimally invasive robotic technique, particularly regarding the risk factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). We perform a comparative study of robotic pancreatic enucleation (RPE) and open enucleation (OPE) with the aim of evaluating clinical and cost-effective outcomes. METHODS: This is a case-matched analysis of patients who underwent robotic and open pancreatic enucleation performed at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid, from October 2014 to December 2021. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. Clinicopathologic characteristics and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analysed. Two groups of demographically similar patients were analysed: the robotic group (n = 20) and the open group (n = 20). The patient characteristics of the two groups have been compared. From February 2015, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are also included and prospectively recorded in the database and used to measure the effectiveness of the treatment. RESULT: A total of 20 RPE and 20 OPE have been included. The incremental cost of the robotic approach versus open was €2617.85(CI 95% 1601.48; 3634.24) and the incremental utility was 0.0879 QALYs (CI 95% 0.0834; 0.0925). The estimated ICER for patients was €29,782.13 (CI 95% 17,313.29; 43,576.01) per QALY gained. Robotic resection resulted a shorter postoperative hospital stay, less wound infections, faster recovery diet and a similar operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Pathological data were similar for both procedures. CONCLUSION: RPE resulted in a shorter hospital stay and less blood loss and morbidity, comparable with the outcomes of open enucleation. RPE may also be acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Recurrent giant fibrovascualr oesophageal polyp: Benefits and pitfalls of a multimodal approach.

Fibrovascular polyp of the cervical esophagus represents about 0.5% to 1% of all benign oesophageal tumours. Usually asymptomatic, when FP protrudes into the oesophageal lumen, this may cause respiratory obstruction and provoke dysphagia, vomiting, dyspnoea, and retrosternal pain. In this article, we describe a multimodal approach in the treatment of a complex recurrent FP, for which surgical resection represents the safer and less invasive procedure.

Right-side colectomy with complete mesocolic excision vs conventional right-side colectomy in the treatment of colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of complete mesocolic excision (CME) in the treatment of right-side colon cancer when compared with standard right-side hemicolectomy, focusing on oncological outcomes, mortality and morbidity rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE and EMBASE archives, including studies on CME in right-side colon cancer. Primary outcomes were five-year disease-free survival and five-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes investigated were mortality and morbidity rates, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leakage, postoperative ileus, day of postoperative flatus, pulmonary infection, duration of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes harvested. RESULTS: Seventeen studies have been included in this meta-analysis for a total of 3918 patients. The five-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) results improved in the CME group with respect to conventional right-side colectomy with an OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.02-3.45) and OR 2.77 (95% CI 1.33-5.74), respectively. The incidence of mortality and morbidity was comparable between the two groups. Moreover, conventional surgery time was faster than CME (MD 33.69 min, 95% CI 12.79-54.59), while no significant differences were reported in mean blood loss and hospital stay. Furthermore, the CME group showed a higher mean number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 7.08 lymph nodes 95% CI 4.90-9.27). CONCLUSION: Complete mesocolic excision of the right-side colectomy improves oncological outcomes without increasing mortality and morbidity rates compared to standard right-side hemicolectomy. CME should therefore be routinely performed in the treatment of right-side colon cancer.

Robotic-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy, reporting for the first time in literature, a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: This is a case-matched prospective non-randomized study conducted from October 2013 to October 2017 at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma or adenoma, not suitable endoscopic resection were treated with robot-assisted right colectomy and a propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance preoperative characteristics of a laparoscopic control group. Perioperative, postoperative, long-term oncological results and costs were analysed, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000 and 30,000 per QALY was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost effective. RESULTS: Thirty-five robot-assisted right colectomies were included and a group of 35 laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy was selected. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with longer operation times (243 min vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in terms of total costs between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (9455.14 vs 8227.50 respectively, p = 0.21). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000, there was a 78.78-95.04% probability that the robotic group was cost effective relative to laparoscopic group. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted right colectomy is a safe and feasible technique and is a cost-effective procedure.

Role of 18F-PET-CT to predict pathological response after neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) is universally considered to be a valid treatment to achieve downstaging, to improve local disease control and to obtain better resectability in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The aim of this study is to correlate the change in the tumour 18F-FDG PET-CT standardized uptake value (SUV) before and after nCRT, in order to obtain an early prediction of the pathologic response (pR) achieved in patients with LARC. DATA DESCRIPTION: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with LARC diagnosis who underwent curative resection. All patients underwent a baseline 18F-FDG PET-CT scan within the week prior to the initiation of the treatment (PET-CT SUV1) and a second scan (PET-CT SUV2) within 6 weeks of the completion of nCRT. We evaluated the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET-CT in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with LARC.A total of 133 patients with LARC were included in the study. Patients were divided in two groups according to the TRG (tumour regression grade): 107 (80%) as the responders group (TRG0-TRG1) and 26 (25%) as the no-responders group (TRG2-TRG3). We obtained a significant difference in Δ%SUV between the two different groups; responders versus no-responders (p < 0.012). The results of this analysis show that 18F-FDG PET-CT may be an indicator to evaluate the pR to nCRT in patients with LARC. The decrease in 18F-FDG PET-CT uptake in the primary tumour may offer important information in order for an early identification of those patients more likely to obtain a pCR to nCRT and to predict those who are unlikely to significantly regress.

Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Status for Actual Long-Term Survival in Resected Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic factors for long-term survival after curative resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are still poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to identify the prognostic factors of long-term survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma based on actual 5-year survival including different lymph node status classifications. METHOD: A total of 106 patients who underwent pancreatectomy were enrolled at our institution and retrospectively analyzed according to actual survival (> vs < 5 years), as well as several currently available node classifications: N0/N1, N0/N1/N2, and lymph-node ratio (LNR) including multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The actual 5-year overall survival rate of the series was 12.26%. In a univariate analysis, operative blood loss and blood transfusion, completion of adjuvant treatment, histological differentiation, perineural invasion, N0/N1, N0/N1/N2 and LNR were significant predictive factors for actual long-term survival. A multivariate analysis showed that only N0/N1 was an independent predictive factor for actual 5-year survival (OR: 1.593; 0.730-1.325; p= 0.264). CONCLUSION: The nodal involved status is the strongest independent unfavorable factor for actual long-term survival after pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

AIM: There is no study in the literature that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). We performed a comparative study of RDP and LDP with the aim of evaluating clinical and cost-effective outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is an observational, comparative prospective nonrandomized study. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness to pay of €20 000 and €30 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost-effective. RESULTS: A total of 31 RDP and 28 LDP have been included. The overall mean total cost was similar in both groups (RDP: €9712.15 versus LDP: €9424.68; P > .5). Mean QALYs for RDP (0.652) was higher than that associated with LDP (0.59) (P > .5). CONCLUSION: This study seems to provide data of cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP approaches, showing some benefits for RDP.

Venous Resection for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Time Trend and Outcome Analysis of 65 Consecutive Resections at a High-Volume Center.

INTRODUCTION: Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is a highly malignant carcinoma with an extremely poor prognosis. Vascular venous invasion is a frequent finding in patients with pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the morbidity, mortality, and survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our experience of 65 consecutive pancreatic surgeries with venous resection for pancreatic cancer in three hospitals: Ramon y Cajal (Madrid, Spain) from 2002 to 2004, Monteprincipe University Hospital (Madrid, Spain) from 2005 to 2006 and Sanchinarro University Hospital (Madrid, Spain) from 2007 to December 2017. Prognostic factors were analyzed by the log-rank test and a multivariate proportional hazard regression analysis. RESULTS: Major venous reconstruction was performed by primary lateral venorrhaphy in 11 patients (17%), primary end-to-end anastomosis in 46 (70.7%) and reconstruction with a Gore-Tex® patch (W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Flagstaff, AZ) in 8 (12.3%). In 58% of the patients, the pathological examination showed infiltration of the vascular specimen. About 85% of the procedures performed were R0. The perioperative morbidity rate with Dindo-Clavien classification = III was 21.5%. Tumor size and nodal status were the only prognostic variables, which significantly decreased survival by a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Major vascular resection to achieve macroscopic tumor clearance can be performed safely with acceptable operative morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, it is justified only in carefully selected cases.

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreas divisum: A literature review.

BACKGROUND: Pancreas divisum is a congenital embryological disease caused by a lack of fusion between the ventral and dorsal pancreatic ducts in the early stages of embryogenesis. Recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis or chronic abdominal pain are the main clinical syndromes at presentation and occur in only 5% of the patients with pancreas divisum. This review aimed to discuss diagnosis and treatment strategies in patients with symptomatic pancreas divisum. DATA SOURCES: We report a literature review from 1990 up to January 2018 to explore the various diagnostic modalities and surgical techniques and results reported in the surgical treatment of pancreas divisum. RESULTS: There are limited reports available on this topic in the literature. We analyzed and described the main indications in the treatment of pancreas divisum, focusing on surgical treatment and a discussion of the different approaches. Furthermore, we report the results from our experience in two cases of pancreas divisum treated by pancreatic head resection with segmental duodenectomy (the Nakao procedure). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreas divisum is a common pancreatic malformation in which only a few patients develop a symptomatic disease. Surgical treatment is needed in case of endoscopic drainage failure and in cases complicated with chronic pancreatitis and local complications. Many techniques, of greater or lesser complexity, have been proposed.

Clinical Presentation and Anatopathologic Finding of a Hepatic Vascular Hamartoma: a Case Report.

HVH (hepatic vascular hamartoma) is a tumor like malformation arising from the vascular tissue of the liver. HVH has been previously reported in animals and presents distintive features from the most frequent benign tumor like malformation of the liver, the hepatic mesenchymal hamartoma (HMH). Herein we report a case of HVH localized in hepatic segment 4b, involving the gastro hepatic ligament, successfully treated with total excision. We describe the anatomo-pathologic findings focusing on the clinical and radiological presentation, the intraoperative characteristics and the differential diagnosis.

Robotic versus standard open pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparison.

Interest in robotic pancreatectomy has been greatly increasing over the last decade. However, evidence supporting the benefits of robotic over open pancreatectomy is still outstanding. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic pancreatectomy compared with the conventional open surgical approach. Propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance age, sex, BMI, ASA, tumor size, and malignancy of 17 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 12 pancreatic enucleations (PE), and 28 distal pancreatectomies (DP); and was compared with the open standard approach. Robotic PD was associated with longer operative time (594 vs. 413 min; p = 0.03) and decreased blood loss (190 vs. 394 ml; p = 0.001). Robotic PE showed a lower mean length of hospital stay (8.4 vs. 12.8 days; p = 0.04) and, in addition, robotic DP showed less blood loss (175 vs. 375 ml; p = 0.01), less severe morbidities (7.14 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.02), and a reduced mean length of hospital stay (8.9 vs. 15.1; p = 0.001). Overall, conversion rate was 4 (7%). Robotic pancreatectomy is as safe and effective as the standard open surgical approach with reduced blood loss in PD and DP, length of hospital stay in PE and DP, and severe morbidity in DP.

Robotic assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a case-matched study.

In recent years, increasingly sophisticated tools have allowed for more complex robotic surgery. Robotic gastrectomy, however, is adopted in only a few selected centers. The goals of this study were to examine the adoption of robotic gastrectomy and to compare outcomes between open and robotic gastric resections. This is a case-matched analysis of patients who underwent robotic and open gastric resection performed at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid from November 2011 to February 2017. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. Clinicopathologic characteristics and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Two groups of demographically similar patients were analyzed: the robotic group (n = 20) and the open surgery group (n = 19). The patient characteristics of the two groups have been compared. Robotic resection resulted in less blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and a longer operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Pathological data were similar for both procedures. Robotic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric carcinoma is safe, and long-term outcomes are comparable to those patients who underwent open resection. Robotic gastrectomy resulted in a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and morbidity comparable with the outcomes of open gastrectomy.

Cost-effectiveness of Randomized Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and cost-effective outcomes of the open Lichtenstein repair (OL) and laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair for bilateral inguinal hernias. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: A cost-effective analysis of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair is still not well addressed, especially regarding bilateral hernia. METHODS: This is a clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis within a randomized prospective study conducted at Sanchinarro University Hospital.Cases of primary, reducible bilateral inguinal hernia were included and randomized using a simple randomization program.The outcome parameters included surgical and postoperative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Between March 2013 and January 2017, 165 patients were enrolled in this study (81 of them underwent TAPP and 84 OL).The TAPP procedure had less early postoperative pain (P = 0.037), a shorter length of stay (P = 0.001), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) when compared with the OL approach. The overall cost of TAPP procedure was higher compared with the OL cost (1,683.93&OV0556; vs 1192.83&OV0556;, P = 0.027). The mean QALYs at 1 year for TAPP (0.8094) was higher than that associated with OL (0.6765) (P = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 &OV0556; and 30,000 &OV0556;, there was a 95.38% and 97.96% probability that TAPP was more cost-effective relative to OL. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPP procedure for bilateral inguinal hernia appears to be more cost-effective compared with OL.

A prospective randomized study comparing laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein repair for bilateral inguinal hernias.

BACKGROUND: In literature, only a few studies have prospectively compared the results of laparoscopic with open inguinal hernia repair yet none have compared bilateral inguinal hernia repair. The aim of this study is to compare the open Lichtenstein repair (OLR) with laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair in patients undergoing surgery for bilateral inguinal hernia. METHODS: Patients were prospectively randomized between March 2013 and March 2015. Outcome parameters included hospital stay, operation time, postoperative complications, immediate postoperative pain and chronic pain, recurrence and quality of life. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent TAPP repair and 73 underwent OLR. TAPP procedure had less early post-operative pain up to 7 days from surgery (p = 0.003), a shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.001), less postoperative complications (p = 0.012) and less chronic pain (0.04) when compared with the OLR approach. CONCLUSIONS: TAPP procedure for bilateral inguinal hernia effectively reduces early postoperative pain, hospital stay and postoperative complications.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis.

BACKGROUND: The robotic surgery cost presents a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). METHODS: Data were abstracted prospectively from 2011 to 2017. An independent company performed the financial analysis. RESULTS: A total of 28 RDP and 26 LDP were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the LDP (294 vs 241 min; p = 0.02). The main intra and post-operative data were similar, except for the conversion rate (RDP: 3.6% vs LDP: 19.2%; p = 0.04) and hospital stay (RDP: 8.9 vs LDP 13.1 days; p = 0.04). The mean total costs were similar in both groups (RDP: 9198.64 € vs LDP: 9399.74 €; p > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: RDP showed lower conversion rate and shorter hospital stay than LDP at the price of longer operative time. RDP is financially comparable to LDP.