Short-Term Out-of-Pocket and Total Costs of Care After Ablation, Resection, or Transplant for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A National SEER-Medicare Cost Comparison.

BACKGROUND. Differences in survival and morbidity among treatment options (ablation, surgical resection, and transplant) for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been well studied. Additional understanding of the costs of such care would help to identify drivers of high costs and potential barriers to care delivery. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to quantify total and patient out-of-pocket costs for ablation, surgical resection, and transplant in the management of early-stage HCC and to identify factors predictive of these costs. METHODS. This retrospective U.S. population-based study used the SEER-Medicare linked dataset to identify a sample of 1067 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 73 years; 674 men, 393 women) diagnosed with early-stage HCC (size ≤ 5 cm) treated with ablation (n = 623), resection (n = 201), or transplant (n = 243) between January 2009 and December 2016. Total costs and patient out-of-pocket costs for the index procedure as well as for any care within 30 and 90 days after the procedure were identified and stratified by treatment modality. Additional comparisons were performed among propensity score-matched subgroups of patients treated by ablation or resection (each n = 172). Multivariable linear regression models were used to identify factors predictive of total costs and out-of-pocket costs for index procedures as well as for 30- and 90-day post-procedure periods. RESULTS. For ablation, resection, and transplant, median index-procedure total cost was US$6689, US$25,614, and US$66,034; index-procedure out-of-pocket cost was US$1235, US$1650, and US$1317; 30-day total cost was US$9456, US$29,754, and US$69,856; 30-day out-of-pocket cost was US$1646, US$2208, and US$3198; 90-day total cost was US$14,572, US$34,984, and US$88,103; and 90-day out-of-pocket cost was US$2138, US$2462, and US$3876, respectively (all p < .001). In propensity score-matched subgroups, ablation and resection had median index-procedure, 30-day, and 90-day total costs of US$6690 and US$25,716, US$9995 and US$30,365, and US$15,851 and US$34,455, respectively. In multivariable analysis adjusting for socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, and liver-disease prognostic indicators, surgical treatment (resection or transplant) was predictive of significantly greater costs compared with ablation at all time points. CONCLUSION. Total and out-of-pocket costs for index procedures as well as for 30-day and 90-day postprocedure periods were lowest for ablation, followed by resection and then transplant. CLINICAL IMPACT. This comprehensive cost analysis could help inform future cost-effectiveness analyses.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center. METHODS: In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022). RESULTS: Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs. DISCUSSION: In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.

Effect of IWATE laparoscopic difficulty score on postoperative outcomes and costs for robotic hepatectomy: Are complex resections more expensive?

BACKGROUND: The IWATE criteria, a four-level classification system for laparoscopic hepatectomy, measures technical complexity but lacks studies on its impact on outcomes and costs, especially in robotic surgeries. This study evaluated the effects of technical complexity on perioperative outcomes and costs in robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: Since 2013, we prospectively followed 500 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were classified into four levels of IWATE scores; (low [0-3], intermediate [4-6], advanced [7-9], and expert [10-12]) determined by tumor characteristics, liver function and resection extent. Perioperative variables were analyzed with significance accepted at a p-value ≤.05. RESULTS: Among 500 patients, 337 (67%) underwent advanced to expert-level operations. Median operative duration was 213 min (range: 16-817 min; mean ± SD: 240 ± 116.1 min; p < .001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 95 mL (range: 0-3500 mL; mean ± SD:142 ± 171.1 mL; p < .001). Both operative duration and EBL showed positive correlations with increasing IWATE scores. Median length of stay (LOS) of 3 days (range: 0-34; mean ± SD:4 ± 3.0 days; p < .001) significantly correlated with IWATE score. Total cost of $25 388 (range: $84-354 407; mean ± SD: 29752 ± 20106.8; p < .001) also significantly correlated with operative complexity, however hospital reimbursement did not. No correlation was found between IWATE score and postoperative complications or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical variables such as operative duration, EBL, and LOS correlate with IWATE difficulty scores in robotic hepatectomy. Financial metrics such as costs but not reimbursement received by the hospital correlate with IWATE scores.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. RESULTS: Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

From morbidity reduction to cost-effectiveness: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations in minimal invasive liver surgery.

PURPOSE: Minimal-invasive liver surgery (MILS) reduces surgical trauma and is associated with fewer postoperative complications. To amplify these benefits, perioperative multimodal concepts like Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS), can play a crucial role. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for MILS in an ERAS program, considering the necessary additional workforce and associated expenses. METHODS: A prospective observational study comparing surgical approach in patients within an ERAS program compared to standard care from 2018-2022 at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Cost data were provided by the medical controlling office. ERAS items were applied according to the ERAS society recommendations. RESULTS: 537 patients underwent liver surgery (46% laparoscopic, 26% robotic assisted, 28% open surgery) and 487 were managed by the ERAS protocol. Implementation of ERAS reduced overall postoperative complications in the MILS group (18% vs. 32%, p = 0.048). Complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade II incurred the highest costs (€ 31,093) compared to minor (€ 17,510) and no complications (€13,893; p < 0.001). In the event of major complications, profit margins were reduced by a median of € 6,640. CONCLUSIONS: Embracing the ERAS society recommendations in liver surgery leads to a significant reduction of complications. This outcome justifies the higher cost associated with a well-structured ERAS protocol, as it effectively offsets the expenses of complications.

Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for primary hepatolithiasis: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatolithiasis confers better clinical benefit and lower hospital costs than open hepatectomy (OH). This study aim to evaluate the clinical and economic value of LH versus OH. METHODS: Patients undergoing OH or LH for primary hepatolithiasis at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between 2015 and 2022 were divided into OH group and LH group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data. Deviation-based cost modelling and weighted average median cost (WAMC) were used to assess and compare the economic value. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients were identified. After exclusions, 403 patients with primary hepatolithiasis underwent anatomical hepatectomy (OH n=143; LH n=260). PSM resulted in 2 groups of 100 patients each. Although LH required a longer median operation duration compared with OH (285.0 versus 240.0 min, respectively, P<0.001), LH patients had fewer wound infections, fewer pre-discharge overall complications (26 versus 43%, respectively, P=0.009), and shorter median postoperative hospital stays (8.0 versus 12.0 days, respectively, P<0.001). No differences were found in blood loss, major complications, stone clearance, and mortality between the two matched groups. However, the median overall hospital cost of LH was significantly higher than that of OH (CNY¥52,196.1 versus 45,349.5, respectively, P=0.007). Although LH patients had shorter median postoperative hospital stays and fewer complications than OH patients, the WAMC was still higher for the LH group than for the OH group with an increase of CNY¥9,755.2 per patient undergoing LH. CONCLUSION: The overall clinical benefit of LH for hepatolithiasis is comparable or even superior to that of OH, but with an economic disadvantage. There is a need to effectively reduce the hospital costs of LH and the gap between costs and diagnosis-related group reimbursement to promote its adoption.

Hospital readmissions after robotic hepatectomy for neoplastic disease: Analysis of risk factors, survival, and economical impact. A logistical regression and propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: As the first comprehensive investigation into hospital readmissions following robotic hepatectomy for neoplastic disease, this study aims to fill a critical knowledge gap by evaluating risk factors associated with readmission and their impact on survival and the financial burden. METHODS: The study analyzed a database of robotic hepatectomy patients, comparing readmitted and non-readmitted individuals post-operatively using 1:1 propensity score matching. Statistical methods included Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, T-test, binomial logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Among 244 patients, 44 were readmitted within 90 days. Risk factors included hypertension (p â€‹= â€‹0.01), increased Child-Pugh score (p â€‹< â€‹0.01), and R1 margin status (p â€‹= â€‹0.05). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy correlated with lower readmission risk (p â€‹= â€‹0.045). Readmissions didn't significantly impact five-year survival (p â€‹= â€‹0.42) but increased fixed indirect hospital costs (p â€‹< â€‹0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission post-robotic hepatectomy correlates with hypertension, higher Child-Pugh scores, and R1 margins. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a lower admission rate due to less diffuse liver disease in these patients. While not affecting survival, readmissions elevate healthcare costs.

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma presents less respiratory complications compared with open procedure: A propensity score analysis in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Resection is still the most efficacious treatment to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), among which laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have controversial effects against conventional open procedure (OLR). With a predictable aging tendency of population worldwide, conventional surgical procedures need to be modified to better accommodate elderly patients. Here, we designed a retrospective study based on propensity score analysis, aiming to compare the efficacy of OLR and LLR in patients over 65 years. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with an age over 65 who underwent liver resection between January 2015 and September 2018. Patients were divided into the LLR group and OLR group. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: Among 240 enrolled patients, 142 were matched with comparable baseline (71 each group). In the matched cohort, LLR group presented with shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 7 vs 6 days, p = 0.003) and fewer respiratory complications (19.7% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.049), especially pleural effusion (15.5% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.020). Meanwhile, LLR had comparable overall hospital cost (6142 vs. 6243 USD, p = 0.977) compared with OLR. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) did not differ in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that laparoscopic liver resection for HCC in the older age groups is associated with shorter postoperative hospital stay and comparable hospital cost compared with open procedure, which could be attributable to less respiratory complications. We recommend that laparoscopy be taken as a priority option for elderly patients with resectable HCC.

Impact of cancer center accreditation on outcomes of patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess variations in outcomes among patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at centers with varied accreditation status. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for HCC from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the linked SEER-Medicare database. Short- and long-term outcomes as well as expenditures associated with receipt of surgery were examined based on cancer center accreditation. RESULTS: Among 1390 patients, 46.1% (n = 641) were treated at unaccredited centers, 39.3% (n = 546) at CoC-accredited and 14.6% (n = 203) at NCI-designated centers. Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had lower odds of complications (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.45-0.98) and 90-day mortality (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.11-0.85) after major liver resection compared with individuals treated at CoC-accredited centers. Receipt of surgery at NCI-designated hospitals (ref: CoC-accredited; HR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.66-0.99) was an independent predictor of improved survival. Medicare payments for liver resection were comparable at different accreditation status centers (NCI: $21,760 vs CoC: $24,059 vs unaccredited: $24,724, p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had improved outcomes for the same level of Medicare expenditure compared with patients treated at CoC-accredited centers.

Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy is cost-effective when performed in high volume centers: A five state analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic (LHR) and open hepatic resection (OHR) have not evaluated inpatient costs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify patients undergoing hepatic resection between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS: 10,239 patients underwent hepatic resection. 865 (8%) underwent LHR and 9374 (92%) underwent OHR. On adjusting for hospital volume, patients undergoing LHR had a lower risk of respiratory (OR 0.64, 95% CI [0.52, 0.78]), wound (OR 0.48; 95% CI [0.29, 0.79]) and hematologic (OR 0.57; 95% CI [0.44, 0.73]) complication as well as a lower risk of being in the highest quartile of cost (0.58; 95% CI [0.43, 0.77]) than those undergoing OHR. Patients undergoing LHR in very high volume (>314 hepatectomies/year) centers had lower risk-adjusted 90-day aggregate costs of care than those undergoing OHR (-$8022; 95% CI [-$11,732, -$4311). DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy is associated with lower risk of postoperative complication than OHR. This translates to lower aggregate costs in very high-volume centers.

Hepatopancreatic Surgery in the Rural United States: Variation in Outcomes at Critical Access Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Sixty million Americans live in rural America, with roughly 17.5% of the rural population being 65 y or older. Outcomes and costs of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at critical access hospitals (CAHs) are not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare files were used to identify patients who underwent hepatopancreatic resection. Outcomes were compared (CAHs versus non-CAHs). RESULTS: Patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at non-CAHs versus CAHs had a similar comorbidity score (4 versus 5, P = 0.53). After adjusting for patient-level factors and procedure-specific volume, there was no difference in complication rate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.24). The median cost of hospitalization was roughly $4000 less at CAHs than that at non-CAHs (P < 0.001). However, compared with patients undergoing surgery at non-CAHs, beneficiaries operated at CAHs had more than two times the odds of dying within 30 (aOR 2.45, 95% CI 1.42-4.2) and 90 d (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.4-3.71). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small subset of Medicare beneficiaries underwent hepatic or pancreatic resection at a CAH. Despite similar complication rate, Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery at a CAH had more than two times the odds of dying within 30 and 90 d after surgery.

Analysis of economic impact of laparoscopic liver resection according to surgical difficulty.

INTRODUCTION: The advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are well known, but their financial costs are poorly evaluated. The aim of this study was to analyze the economic impact of surgical difficulty on LLR costs, and to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges. METHODS: All patients who underwent LLR from 2014 to 2018 in a single French center were included. The IMM classification was used to stratify surgical difficulty, from group I through group III. The costing method was done combining top-down and bottom-up approaches. A multivariate analysis was performed in order to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients were included (Group I: n = 136 (50%), Group II: n = 60 (22%), Group III: n = 74 (28%)). Total expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III, but there was no difference regarding financial income (p = 0.133). Technical platform expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III and represented the main expense among all costs with a total of 4 930 ± 2 601€. Among technical platform expenses, the anesthesia platform represented the main expense. In multivariate analysis, the four clinical factors that affected global charges in the whole study population were operating time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), admission in ICU (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of major complication (p < 0.05). An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that affected most global charges, as an ICU stay had a 39.1% increase effect on global charges in the whole study population. CONCLUSION: LLR is a cost-effective procedure. The more complex is the LLR, the higher is the hospital cost. An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that most affected global charges.

Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively. RESULTS: Of 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Sociodemographic Characteristics as Predictors of Outcomes in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Race, gender, insurance status, and income play important roles in predicting health care outcomes. However, the impact of these factors has yet to be fully elucidated in the setting of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We designed a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program to identify patients diagnosed with resectable HCC (N = 28,518). Demographic factors of interest included race (Asian/Pacific Islander [API], African American [AA], Native American/Alaska Native [NA], or White [WH]) and gender (male [M] or female [F]). Insurance classifications included those having Medicare/Private Insurance [ME/PI], Medicaid [MAID], or No Insurance [NI]. Median household income was estimated for all diagnosed with HCC. Endpoints included: (1) overall survival; (2) likelihood of receiving a recommendation for surgery; and (3) specific surgical intervention performed. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression for relative risk ratio (RRR) and Cox regression models were used to identify pertinent associations. RESULTS: Race, gender, insurance status, and income had statistically significant effects on the likelihood of surgical recommendation and overall survival. API were more likely to receive a recommendation for hepatic resection (RRR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.31-1.61; Reference Race: AA) and exhibited prolonged overall survival (HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.73-0.82; Reference Race: AA) as compared to members of any other ethnic group; there was no difference in these endpoints between AA, NA, or WH individuals. Gender also had a significant effect on survival: Females exhibited superior overall survival (HR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.85-0.93; Reference Gender: M) as compared to males. Patients who had ME/PI were more likely than those with MAID or NI to receive a surgical recommendation. ME/PI was also associated with superior overall survival. Conclusions: Race, gender, insurance status, and income have measurable effects on HCC management and outcomes. The underlying causes of these disparities warrant further investigation.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is safe and effective for the management of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases in a population-based analysis in Ontario, Canada. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been deemed safe, and, in the case of minor hepatectomy, the standard of care. Short-, long-term outcomes and costs of LH compared with open hepatectomy (OH) in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases have not been well described at the population level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer undergoing hepatectomy were included in this population-based retrospective cohort study from 2006- to 2014. Postoperative complications (per Clavien-Dindo) and survival were analyzed using a linear mixed model and Cox-Proportional hazards model respectively. Costs of surgery and the 90-day postoperative period were considered in 2018 Canadian dollars and compared from the perspective of a third-party payer. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 56 months, 95% confidence interval (CI): 51 to 68), there were 2991 hepatectomies (OH: 2551 (85%) and LH: 440 (15%)). LH compared to OH was more common for patients >70 years-old (30% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and for minor hepatectomy (52% vs. 32%, p < 0.001) respectively. By multivariable analyses, OH was associated with similar 90-day mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI: 0.56-1.97), and overall survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.29), but higher rates of major postoperative complications (OR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.03-1.76), higher cost (median difference $6,163, 95% CI: $3229 to $9096), and longer length of hospital stay (LOS) (mean difference 3.04 days, 95% CI: 2.7 to 3.91). CONCLUSION: LH was associated with lower postoperative complications, shorter LOS, which translated into lower costs to the healthcare system, without differences in postoperative mortality and survival.

Laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: comprehensive comparison of complications and costs at 90 days using a propensity method.

Laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LHH) may offer advantages over open hemihepatectomy (OHH) in blood loss, recovery, and hospital stay. The aim of this study is to evaluate our recent experience performing hemihepatectomy and compare complications and costs up to 90 days following laparoscopic versus open procedures. Retrospective evaluation of patients undergoing hemihepatectomy at our center 01/2010-12/2018 was performed. Patient, tumor, and surgical characteristics; 90-day complications; and costs were analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance covariates. A total of 141 hemihepatectomies were included: 96 OHH and 45 LHH. While operative times were longer for LHH, blood loss and transfusions were less. At 90 days, there were similar rates of liver-specific and surgical complications but fewer medical complications following LHH. Medical complications that arose with greater frequency following OHH were primarily pulmonary complications and urinary and central venous catheter infections. Complications at 90 days were lower following LHH (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III OHH 23%, LHH 11%, p = 0.130; Comprehensive Complication Index OHH 20.0 ± 16.1, LHH 10.9 ± 14.2, p = 0.001). While operating costs were higher, costs for hospital stay and readmissions were lower with LHH. Patients undergoing LHH experience a significant reduction in postoperative medical complications and costs, resulting in 90-day cost equity compared with OHH.

Preoperative continuity of care and its relationship with cost of hepatopancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care may be associated with health care outcomes and costs. The objective of the current study was to characterize the impact of continuity of care on perioperative outcomes, as well as on cost of care, among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic resection. METHODS: Patients with a minimum of 4 outpatient visits in the year before hepatopancreatic surgery were identified in the Medicare claims data. The Bice-Boxerman index was used to calculate continuity of care. The association of continuity of care and expenditures was assessed using a multivariable gamma regression with a log link. RESULTS: Among 25,698 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a hepatopancreatic surgical procedure (hepatectomy: n = 10,679, 41.6%, pancreatectomy: n = 15,019, 58.4%), median patient age was 72 years (interquartile range: 68-77). Overall continuity of care was poor as the median continuity of care was 0.17 (0.10-0.29). Median total surgical costs were higher among patients in the lowest continuity-of-care quartile (continuity of care1st quartile: $25,500 [interquartile range, $18,100-$41,800]) compared with patients in the highest continuity-of-care quartile (continuity of care4th quartile: $22,700 [interquartile range, $17,100-$38,400]). Among patients undergoing hepatic resection, an increase in continuity of care of 0.2 was associated with decreased costs of 5.1% (95% confidence interval: -6.3% to -3.8%) compared with a decrease of 2.5% (95% confidence interval: -3.7% to -1.2%) among pancreatic resection patients. CONCLUSION: Continuity of care in the year before surgery was associated with total cost of surgery-including the cost of the index hospitalization and the total 90-day postdischarge costs. Relative to patients with a continuity of care = 0, indicating complete fragmentation of a patient's outpatient health care, patients with a continuity of care = 0.60 had 12.1% lower total surgical costs.

Robotic liver resection: Hurdles and beyond.

Laparoscopy is currently considered the standard of care for certain procedures such as left-lateral sectionectomies and wedge resections of anterior segments. The role of robotic liver surgery is still under debate, especially with regards to oncological outcomes. The purpose of this review is to describe how the field of robotic liver surgery has expanded, and to identify current limitations and future perspectives of the technology. Available evidences suggest that oncologic results after robotic liver resection are comparable to open and laparoscopic approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases, with identifiable advantages for cirrhotic patients and patients undergoing repeat resections. Excellent outcomes and optimal patient safety can be only achieved with specific hepato-biliary and general minimally invasive training to overcome the learning curve.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes. RESULTS: The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort. CONCLUSION: The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.