Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus endovascular repair in abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has shown promising initial results compared with traditional surgery, but its efficacy remains highly debated. The aim of this monocentric, retrospective study was to investigate differences in morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and HALS, in the medium- and long-term follow-up in a highly selected population. METHODS: We treated 977 patients consecutively for nonurgent AAA from January 2006 to December 2013; among them, 615 (62.9%) underwent open surgery, 173 (17.7%) HALS, and 189 (19.3%) EVAR. For this study, only patients treated with HALS or EVAR were considered. A subsequent selection process was carried out to identify the patients with clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology amenable to either of these treatments. The final study cohort included 229 patients; 92 (40.2%) underwent HALS and 137 (69.8%) received EVAR. The two populations were homogeneous for clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 57 ± 28 months (50 ± 24 months in the EVAR group and 67 ± 29 months in the HALS group; range, 2-110 months). No deaths and no statistically significant differences in severe complications or reinterventions were observed over the perioperative period (30 days). Length of stay was significantly shorter after EVAR, because the need for and length of stay in the intensive care unit were decreased. Three postoperative deaths (in-hospital mortality >30 days: HALS, 2.2%; EVAR, 0.7%; P = .7268) occurred owing to respiratory failure (two patients, one in each group) and multiorgan failure secondary to a bowel ischemia (one patient in the HALS group). Other deaths in the study population were not related to the procedure. In both groups, the major causes of death were cancer (24 cases [36.9%]), cardiovascular causes unrelated to AAA (16 [24.6%]), and chronic obstructive lung disease (10 [15.4%]). In the long-term follow-up period, there was a difference in the overall survival in favor of HALS when compared with EVAR (P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective, single-center study shows that, within a population of similar clinical and anatomic characteristics, treatment of AAA with EVAR or HALS does not result in significant differences in early morbidity and mortality. EVAR presents significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, whereas HALS presents a lower aneurysm-related reintervention rate and lower perioperative cost. The strict patient selection in this trial, as is generally the case with AAA treatment, is likely the key to success for both of these techniques.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopy: Expensive but Considerable Step Between Laparoscopic and Open Colectomy.

PURPOSE: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) have been shown to have comparable short-term outcomes while there are limited data regarding costs. The aim of our study was to compare the short-term outcomes and costs of HALC and LAC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 46 patients who underwent HALC or LAC for benign or malignant disease between January 2011 and December 2014 at our institution were included in the study. Patients were randomized into HALC or LAC group. Patients' demographics and characteristics, operative details, short-term outcomes, and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 25 patients in LAC group and 21 patients in HALC group. Patient's demographics and characteristics and short-term outcomes were comparable between the LAC and HALC groups. Conversion rate was significantly lower in the HALC group (4.7% vs. 28%, P=0.03) while surgical costs ($1706.83±203.70 vs. $1304.93±305.67, P=0.038) and total costs ($2427.18±254.27 vs. $2044.03±215.22, P=0.021) were significantly higher in HALC group. CONCLUSIONS: HALC is associated with increased surgical and total hospital costs, and decreased rate of conversion. Although it is more expensive, HALC may be helpful by providing a step between LAC and open surgery before considering conversion.

Cost-Effective and Potential Benefits in Three-Port Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate potential benefits of three-port hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (HALS) compared with open sigmoidectomy (OS) in terms of short-term outcomes and cost-benefit. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective review of a database of cases that matched 100 sigmoid cancer patients treated with sigmoidectomy at the Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital was performed. Short-term outcomes and costs of treatment were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: There were no differences in age, gender body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, Charlson comorbidity index score, and previous surgery between OS and HALS groups. The three-port HALS group had significantly less blood loss (50 (5-400) mL vs. 120 (10-1,000) mL, p<0.001), faster time to regular diet (64.6±20.7 hours vs. 97.6±52.5 hours, p<0.001), and lower pain score (4.3±1.7 vs. 5.3±1.6, p = 0.008). The hospital-stay related cost was sign icantly lower in HALS group ($114 ($47-$789) vs. $190 ($57-$1,462), p

Endowrist versus wrist: a case-controlled study comparing robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains a technically challenging procedure. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) techniques in performing TME for patients with rectal cancers. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent RAL TME for rectal cancers was performed. These cases were matched for age, sex, and stage of malignancy with patients who underwent HAL TME. Data collected included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, comorbid conditions, types of surgical resections and operative times, perioperative complications, length of hospital stays, and histopathologic outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: From August 2008 to August 2011, 19 patients, with a median age of 62 (range, 47 to 92) years underwent RAL TME. Eight (42.1%) patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The median docking and operative times were 10 (range, 3 to 34) and 390 (range, 289 to 771) minutes, respectively. There was 1 (5.3%) conversion to open surgery. The grade of mesorectal excision was histopathologically reported as complete in all 19 cases. Positive circumferential margin was reported in 1 (5.3%) patient.Comparing the 2 groups, more patients in the RAL group received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (8 vs. 3; P=0.048). The operative times were longer in the RAL group (390 vs. 225 min; P<0.001). A higher proportion of patients in the HAL group required conversion to open surgery (5 vs. 1; P=0.180) and developed perioperative morbidities (3 vs. 7; P=0.269). The median length of hospitalization was comparable between both groups (RAL: 7 vs. HAL: 6 d; P=0.476).The procedural cost was significantly higher in the RAL group (US$12,460 vs. US$8560; P<0.001), whereas the nonprocedural cost remained comparable between the 2 groups (RAL: US$4470 vs. HAL: US$4500; P=0.729). CONCLUSIONS: RAL TME is associated with lower conversion and morbidity rates compared with HAL TME. The longer operating times and higher procedural costs are current limitations to its widespread adoption.

Cost comparison analysis of open versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: In comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is associated with fewer complications and shorter hospital stays, but comparative cost data for the two approaches are limited. METHODS: Records of all distal pancreatectomies carried out from January 2009 to June 2013 were reviewed and stratified according to operative complexity. Patient factors and outcomes were recorded. Total variable costs (TVCs) were tabulated for each patient, and stratified by category [e.g. 'floor', 'operating room' (OR), 'radiology']. Costs for index admissions and 30-day readmissions were compared between LDP and ODP groups. RESULTS: Of 153 procedures, 115 (70 LDP, 45 ODP) were selected for analysis. The TVC of the index admission was US$3420 less per patient in the LDP group (US$10 480 versus US$13 900; P = 0.06). Although OR costs were significantly greater in the LDP cohort (US$5756 versus US$4900; P = 0.02), the shorter average hospitalization in the LDP group (5.2 days versus 7.7 days; P = 0.01) resulted in a lower overall cost. The total cost of index hospitalization combined with readmission was significantly lower in the LDP cohort (US$11 106 versus US$14 803; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients, LDP is more cost-effective than ODP. The increased OR cost associated with LDP is offset by the shorter hospitalization. These data clarify targets for further cost reductions.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery remains one of the most challenging techniques to learn. METHODS: The authors collected studies that have compared hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal disease over the past 17 years. Data of interest for HALS and open surgery were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twelve studies that included 1,362 patients were studied. In total, 2.66% of HALS procedures were converted to laparotomy. Compared with the open surgery group, blood loss, rate of wound infection, and ileus in the HALS group decreased, and incision length, recovery of gastrointestinal function, and hospitalization period were shorter. There were no significant differences in operating time, hospitalization costs, mortality, and complications, including urinary tract infection, pneumonia, and anastomotic leak, between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: HALS has the advantages of minimal invasion, lower blood loss, shorter incision length, and faster recovery, and it can shorten the length of hospitalization without an increase in costs. The drawbacks are that a small number of patients who undergo HALS may need to be converted to laparotomy, and the oncologic safety and long-term prognosis are not clear.

Cost-effectiveness of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Live kidney donation has a clear economical benefit over dialysis and deceased-donor transplantation. Compared with mini-incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is considered cost-effective. However, little is known on the cost-effectiveness of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HARP versus LDN. METHODS: Alongside a randomized controlled trial, the cost-effectiveness of HARP versus LDN was assessed. Eighty-six donors were included in the LDN group and 82 in the HARP group. All in-hospital costs were recorded. During follow-up, return-to-work and other societal costs were documented up to 1 year. The EuroQol-5D questionnaire was administered up to 1 year postoperatively to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Mean total costs from a healthcare perspective were $8935 for HARP and $8650 for LDN (P = 0.25). Mean total costs from a societal perspective were $16,357 for HARP and $16,286 for LDN (P = 0.79). On average, donors completely resumed their daytime jobs on day 54 in the HARP group and on day 52 in the LDN group (P = 0.65). LDN resulted in a gain of 0.005 QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute costs of both procedures are very low and the differences in costs and QALYs between LDN and HARP are very small. Other arguments, such as donor safety and pain, should determine the choice between HARP and LDN.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of short-term outcomes and cost.

INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) have become standard for the surgical management of small renal masses (SRMs). However, no studies have evaluated the short-term outcomes or cost of RALPN as compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (HALPN) in a standardized fashion. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent HALPN or RALPN from 2006 to 2010 were assessed for patient age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, radiographic tumor size, nephrometry (radius, endo/exophytic, nearness to collecting system, anterior/posterior, lines of polarity [RENAL]) scores, operative and room times, hospital length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), requirement of hilar vessel clamping, warm ischemia time (WIT), pre- and postprocedural creatinine and hemoglobin levels, and complications. Total costs of the procedures were estimated based on operating room component (operative staff time, anesthesia, and supply) and hospital stay cost (room and board, pharmacy). A robotic premium cost, estimated based on the yearly overall cost of the da Vinci S surgical system divided by the annual number of cases, was included in the RALPN cost. Cost figures were obtained from hospital administration and applied to the mean HALPN and RALPN patient. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients underwent HALPN since 2006 and 21 patients underwent RALPN since 2008. ASA, BMI, EBL, tumor size, nephrometry score, positive margin rate, change in creatinine, change in hemoglobin, morphine equivalents used, and complication rate were all similar in both groups (p>0.05). Room time and operative time were significantly shorter for the HALPN cohort (p=0.001) whereas LOS was significantly shorter in the RALPN cohort (p=0.019). Despite the shorter LOS, RALPN was associated with a $1165 increased cost, mainly due to increased operating room time and premium cost of the robot. CONCLUSIONS: While early in our experience, RALPN offered no significant advantage in short-term outcomes over HALPN and was associated with an increased cost of over $1150.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy: short-term outcomes in a single institution from China.

AIM: To compare the perioperative parameters and short-term outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) and open colectomy (OC) for the treatment of patients with cancer of the right hemicolon. METHODS: Patients who were scheduled to perform right hemicolectomy between August 2009 and December 2010 were randomized into either HALC or OC group. Patients were excluded if they had synchronous cancers, hepatic metastases, acute intestinal obstruction, or intestinal perforations. All the operations in the 2 groups were performed by a single surgical team. Measured outcomes included the demographic variables and perioperative parameters. The former included age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, prior abdominal surgery, distribution of tumors, and histopathologic stage; whereas the latter included length of incision, operative time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, number of lymph nodes retrieved, postoperative pain score, time to return of bowel function, postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and total cost. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen patients with cancer of the right hemicolon (HALC=59, OC=57) were recruited. The 2 groups of patients were similar in age, sex distribution, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and previous abdominal surgery. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in terms of distribution of tumors and the final histopathologic staging. HALC had a significantly shorter incision length and longer operative time than OC. Patients in the HALC group had significantly less operative blood loss, less pain and earlier passage of flatus after operation than those in the OC group. The number of lymph nodes recovered in the specimen and the overall postoperative complications was comparable in the 2 groups. The postoperative duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the HALC group, whereas the median overall costs in the HALC group were significantly higher than that in the OC group. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study demonstrate that the HALC is a valid surgical approach for cancer of the right hemicolon that retains the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. We believe that this technique is a safe, useful, and feasible method for patients with right-sided colonic cancer. If practiced more, it might be advocated as a "bridge" between traditional laparoscopic surgery and conventional open procedures.

Cost analysis of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: To perform a cost comparison of three approaches to partial nephrectomy (PN): Open (OPN), hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALPN), and robot-assisted (RAPN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated cost and clinical data from patients undergoing OPN, HALPN, and RAPN from 2007 to 2010 (n=89). Baseline demographic data, patient comorbidities, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, and perioperative outcomes were assessed. Costs and subcosts from the operating room (OR) and hospital were evaluated using nonparametric statistical analyses. RESULTS: Patient demographics and tumor characteristics were similar between HALPN and RAPN, while OPN patients had more comorbidities and more difficult-to-resect tumors. Thus, HALPN and RAPN were directly compared, while OPNs were excluded from the analysis. No difference was found in overall costs between HALPN and RAPN ($13,560 vs $13,439, P=0.29). OR costs were higher for RAPN ($7276 vs $5708, P=0.0001) because of the higher robotic capital and reusable equipment costs that outweighed higher disposable costs in the HALPN group. OR time-related costs were similar between groups. RAPN patients had a shorter length of stay (LOS), which decreased postoperative hospital costs ($4371 vs $5984, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in overall cost was found between RAPN and HALPN. Robot allocation, OR equipment use, and LOS are important determinants of total cost. Further study regarding recovery and quality of life may reveal added benefits to minimally invasive approaches and increase use of nephron-sparing surgery.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: are hand port devices really necessary?

BACKGROUND: Hand port devices (HPD) are used routinely for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery including hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). However, the cost of such devices may prove prohibitive, particularly in centers with financial constraints. The authors aimed to identify any adverse effects of performing device-free HALDN. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients undergoing HALDN at the authors' unit over a 3-year period (2007-2010). Eighty-four patients underwent device-free HALDN, whereas in 80 patients a HPD was used. The primary endpoint was duration of operation, with secondary endpoints including postoperative wound infections and incisional hernias. RESULTS: here was no difference in duration of operation for the device free (98 minutes; range = 43-215 minutes) compared with the HPD group (94 minutes; range = 36-180 minutes; P = .37). A device was required in 3 (3.6%) patients in which a device-free approach was attempted. There was no difference in either group in terms of rates of postoperative wound infections (0% vs 2.5%, respectively; P = .24) or incisional hernia incidence (1.5% vs 1.4%, respectively; P = .50). CONCLUSION: Device-free HALDN can be performed with no discernable compromise in operating time or patient outcome. This has implications in both cost benefit and translation of this technique to developing units.

Controversy of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopically assisted colorectal procedures are time-consuming and technically demanding and hence have a long steep learning curve. In the technical demand, surgeons need to handle a long mobile organ, the colon, and have to operate on multiple abdominal quadrants, most of the time with the need to secure multiple mesenteric vessels. Therefore, a new surgical innovation called hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in the mid 1990s as a useful alternative to totally laparoscopic procedures. This hybrid operation allows the surgeon to introduce the non-dominant hand into the abdominal cavity through a special hand port while maintaining the pneumoperitoneum. A hand in the abdomen can restore the tactile sensation which is usually lacking in laparoscopic procedures. It also improves the eye-to-hand coordination, allows the hand to be used for blunt dissection or retraction and also permits rapid control of unexpected bleeding. All of those factors can contribute tremendously to reducing the operative time. Moreover, this procedure is also considered as a hybrid procedure that combines the advantages of both minimally invasive and conventional open surgery. Nevertheless, the exact role of HALS in colorectal surgery has not been well defined during the advanced totally laparoscopic procedures. This article reviews the current status of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery as a minimally invasive procedure in the era of laparoscopic surgery.