Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection for the treatment of stage II and III sigmoid colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection is a novel technique. However, evidence in the literature regarding the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) is insufficient. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLS versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of sigmoid colon cancer. We performed a retrospective study at the Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital. Patients diagnosed with sigmoid colon cancer and underwent anterior resection between January 2019 to September 2023 were included in the study. We compared the basic characteristics of the patients and the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients in the two groups. A total of 452 patients were included. Based on propensity score matching, 212 patients (RLS, n = 106; CLS, n = 106) were included. The baseline data in RLS group was comparable to that in CLS group. Compared with CLS group, RLS group exhibited less estimated blood loss (P = 0.015), more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.005), longer operation time (P < 0.001) and higher total hospitalization costs (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in other perioperative or pathologic outcomes between the two groups. For 3-year prognosis, overall survival rates were 92.5% in the RLS group and 90.6% in the CLS group (HR 0.700, 95% CI 0.276-1.774, P = 0.452); disease-free survival rates were 91.5% in the RLS group and 87.7% in the CLS group (HR 0.613, 95% CI 0.262-1.435, P = 0.259). Compared with CLS, RLS for sigmoid colon cancer was found to be associated with a higher number of lymph nodes harvested, similar perioperative outcomes and long-term survival outcomes. High total hospitalization costs of RLS did not translate into better long-term oncology outcomes.

Evaluating the cost of robotic-assisted total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

As uptake of robotic-assisted arthroplasty increases there is a need for economic evaluation of the implementation and ongoing costs associated with robotic surgery. The aims of this study were to describe the in-hospital cost of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RA-UKA) and determine the influence of patient characteristics and surgical outcomes on cost. This prospective cohort study included adult patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing primary unilateral RA-TKA and RA-UKA, at a tertiary hospital in Sydney between April 2017 and June 2021. Patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, and in-hospital cost variables were extracted from hospital medical records. Differences between outcomes for RA-TKA and RA-UKA were compared using independent sample t-tests. Logistic regression was performed to determine drivers of cost. Of the 308 robotic-assisted procedures, 247 were RA-TKA and 61 were RA-UKA. Surgical time, time in the operating room, and length of stay were significantly shorter in RA-UKA (p < 0.001); whereas RA-TKA patients were older (p = 0.002) and more likely to be discharged to in-patient rehabilitation (p = 0.009). Total in-hospital cost was significantly higher for RA-TKA cases (AU$18580.02 vs $13275.38; p < 0.001). Robotic system and maintenance cost per case was AU$3867.00 for TKA and AU$5008.77 for UKA. Patients born overseas and lower volume robotic surgeons were significantly associated with higher total cost of RA-UKA. Increasing age and male gender were significantly associated with higher total cost of RA-TKA. Total cost was significantly higher for RA-TKA than RA-UKA. Robotic system costs for RA-UKA are inflated by the software cost relative to the volume of cases compared with RA-TKA. Cost is an important consideration when evaluating long term benefits of robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty in future studies to provide evidence for the economic sustainability of this practice.

Is implementation of robotic-assisted procedures in acute care general surgery cost-effective?

Over the past 2 decades, the use and importance of robotic surgery in minimally invasive surgery has increased. Across various surgical specialties, robotic technology has gained popularity through its use of 3D visualization, optimal ergonomic positioning, and precise instrument manipulation. This growing interest has also been seen in acute care surgery, where laparoscopic procedures are used more frequently. Despite the growing popularity of robotic surgery in the acute care surgical realm, there is very little research on the utility of robotics regarding its effects on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The current literature indicates some value in utilizing robotic technology in specific urgent procedures, such as cholecystectomies and incarcerated hernia repairs; however, the high cost of robotic surgery was found to be a potential barrier to its widespread use in acute care surgery. This narrative literature review aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in surgical procedures that are often done in urgent settings: cholecystectomies, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, and appendectomies.

Transforming surgical landscapes: obstacles in the integration of robotic surgery in Pakistan -is cost the only limiting factor?

The advantages of Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) over laparoscopic surgery encompass enhanced precision, improved ergonomics, shorter learning curves, versatility in complex procedures, and the potential for remote surgery. These benefits contribute to improved patient outcomes which have led to a paradigm shift in robotic surgery worldwide and it is now being hailed as the future of surgery. Robotic surgery was introduced in Pakistan in 2011, but widespread adoption has been limited. The future of RAS in Pakistan demands a strategic and comprehensive plan due to the substantial investment in installation and maintenance costs. Considering Pakistan's status as a low to middle-income country, a well-designed economic model compatible with the existing health system is imperative. The debate over high investments in robotic surgery amid unmet basic surgical needs underscores the complex dynamics of healthcare challenges in the country. In this review, we discuss the potential benefits of robotics over other surgical techniques, where robotic surgery stands in Pakistan and the possible hurdles and barriers limiting its use along with solutions to overcome this in the future.

The impact of robotic rectal cancer surgery at a Canadian regional cancer centre: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic surgery has several advantages over other minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for rectal cancer surgery, the uptake in Canada has been limited owing to a perceived increase in cost and lack of training. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of access to robotic surgery in a Canadian setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive adults undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer between 2017 and 2020. The primary exposure was access to robotic surgery. Outcomes included MIS utilization, short-term outcomes, total cost of care, and quality of surgical resection. We completed univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We included 171 individuals in this cohort study (85 in the prerobotic period and 86 in the robotic period). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. A higher proportion of individuals underwent successful MIS in the robotic phase (86% v. 46%, p < 0.001). Other benefits included a shorter mean length of hospital stay (5.1 d v. 9.2 d, p < 0.001). The quality of surgical resection was similar between groups. The total cost of care was $16 746 in the robotic period and $18 808 in the prerobotic period (mean difference -$1262, 95% confidence interval -$4308 to $1783; p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Access to robotic rectal cancer surgery increased successful completion of MIS and shortened hospital stay, with a similar total cost of care. Robotic rectal cancer surgery can enhance patient outcomes in the Canadian setting.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Video-Assisted vs Robotic-Assisted Lung Lobectomies for Operating Room Resource Utilization and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: With increased use of robots, there is an inadequate understanding of minimally invasive modalities' time costs. This study evaluates the operative durations of robotic-assisted vs video-assisted lung lobectomies. Objective: To compare resource utilization, specifically operative time, between video-assisted and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic lung lobectomies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients aged 18 to 90 years who underwent minimally invasive (robotic-assisted or video-assisted) lung lobectomy from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, with 90 days' follow-up after surgery. The study included multicenter electronic health record data from 21 hospitals within an integrated health care system in Northern California. Thoracic surgery was regionalized to 4 centers with 14 board-certified general thoracic surgeons. Exposures: Robotic-assisted or video-assisted lung lobectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was operative duration (cut to close) in minutes. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 90-day mortality. Comparisons between video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomies were generated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables. The average treatment effects were estimated with augmented inverse probability treatment weighting (AIPTW). Patient and surgeon covariates were adjusted for and included patient demographics, comorbidities, and case complexity (age, sex, race and ethnicity, neighborhood deprivation index, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, nonelective hospitalizations, emergency department visits, a validated laboratory derangement score, a validated institutional comorbidity score, a surgeon-designated complexity indicator, and a procedural code count), and a primary surgeon-specific indicator. Results: The study included 1088 patients (median age, 70.1 years [IQR, 63.3-75.8 years]; 704 [64.7%] female), of whom 446 (41.0%) underwent robotic-assisted and 642 (59.0%) underwent video-assisted lobectomy. The median unadjusted operative duration was 172.0 minutes (IQR, 128.0-226.0 minutes). After AIPTW, there was less than a 10% difference in all covariates between groups, and operative duration was a median 20.6 minutes (95% CI, 12.9-28.2 minutes; P < .001) longer for robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lobectomies. There was no difference in adjusted secondary patient outcomes, specifically for length of stay (0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8 days; P = .11) or risk of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.84-1.98; P = .13). The unadjusted 90-day mortality rate (1.3% [n = 14]) was too low for the AIPTW modeling process. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, there was no difference in patient outcomes between modalities, but operative duration was longer in robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lung lobectomy. Given that this elevated operative duration is additive when applied systematically, increased consideration of appropriate patient selection for robotic-assisted lung lobectomy is needed to improve resource utilization.

Hospital costs of robotic-assisted and open treatment of large ventral hernias.

Robotic-assisted treatment of ventral hernia offers many advantages, however, studies reported higher costs for robotic surgery compared to other surgical techniques. We aimed at comparing hospital costs in patients undergoing large ventral hernia repair with either robotic or open surgery. We searched from a prospectively maintained database patients who underwent robotic or open surgery for the treatment of the large ventral hernias from January 2016 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was to assess costs in both groups. For eligible patients, data was extracted and analyzed using a propensity score-matching. Sixty-seven patients were retrieved from our database. Thirty-four underwent robotic-assisted surgery and 33 open surgery. Mean age was 66.4 ± 4.1 years, 50% of patients were male. After a propensity score-matching, a similar total cost of EUR 18,297 ± 8,435 vs. 18,024 ± 7514 (p = 0.913) in robotic-assisted and open surgery groups was noted. Direct and indirect costs were similar in both groups. Robotic surgery showed higher operatory theatre-related costs (EUR 7532 ± 2,091 vs. 3351 ± 1872, p < 0.001), which were compensated by shorter hospital stay-related costs (EUR 4265 ± 4366 vs. 7373 ± 4698, p = 0.032). In the treatment of large ventral hernia, robotic surgery had higher operatory theatre-related costs, however, they were fully compensated by shorter hospital stays and resulting in similar total costs.

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.

Three-arm robotic cholecystectomy: a novel, cost-effective method of delivering and learning robotic surgery in upper GI surgery.

Cholecystectomy is one of the commonest performed surgeries worldwide. With the introduction of robotic surgery, the numbers of robot-assisted cholecystectomies has risen over the past decade. Despite the proven use of this procedure as a training operation for those surgeons adopting robotics, the consumable cost of routine robotic cholecystectomy can be difficult to justify in the absence of evidence favouring or disputing this approach. Here, we describe a novel method for performing a robot-assisted cholecystectomy using a "three-arm" technique on the newer, 4th generation, da Vinci system. Whilst maintaining the ability to perform precision dissection, this method reduces the consumable cost by 46%. The initial series of 109 procedures proves this procedure to be safe, feasible, trainable and time efficient.

Efforts to improve the billing accuracy of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery through education, updated procedure cards, and electronic medical record system changes.

Precise medical billing is essential for decreasing hospital liability, upholding environmental stewardship and ensuring fair costs for patients. We instituted a multifaceted approach to improve the billing accuracy of our robotic-assisted thoracic surgery programme by including an educational component, updating procedure cards and removing the auto-populating function of our electronic medical record. Overall, we saw significant improvements in both the number of inaccurate billing cases and, specifically, the number of cases that overcharged patients.

Clinical outcomes and costs of retromuscular and intraperitoneal onlay mesh techniques in robotic incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and financial cost of intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus retromuscular (RM) repairs in robotic incisional hernia repairs (rIHR). METHODS: Patients who underwent either IPOM or RM elective rIHR from 2012 to 2022 were included. Demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and hospital costs were directly compared. RESULTS: Sixty-nine IPOM and 55 RM were included. Age and body mass index (BMI) did not differ between both groups (IPOM vs RM: 59.3 ± 11.2 years vs. 57.5 ± 14 years, p = 0.423; BMI 34.1 ± 6.3 vs. BMI 33.2 ± 6.9, p = 0.435, respectively). Comorbidities and hernia characteristics were comparable. Extensive lysis of adhesions (> 30 min) was required more often in IPOM (18 vs. 6 in RM, p = 0.034). Defect closure was achieved in 100% of RM vs. 81.2% in IPOM (p < 0.001). Median (interquartile range) postoperative pain score was higher in RM than in IPOM [5(3-7) vs. 4(3-5), respectively, p = 0.006]. Median length of stay (0 day) and same-day discharge rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.598, p = 0.669, respectively). Six (8.7%) patients in the IPOM group versus one (1.8%) patient in the RM group were readmitted to hospital within 30 days postoperatively (p = 0.099). Perioperative complications were higher in IPOM (p = 0.011; 34.8% vs. 14.5% in RM) with higher Comprehensive Complication Index® morbidity scores [0(0-12.2) vs 0(0-0) in RM, p = 0.008)], Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications (8 vs 0 in RM, p = 0.009), and surgical site events (17 vs. 5 in RM, p = 0.024). Within a follow-up period of 57(± 28) months, recurrence rates were similar between both groups. Hospital costs did not differ between groups [IPOM: $9978 (7031-12,926) vs. RM: $8961(6701-11,222), p = 0.300]. Although postoperative complication costs were higher in IPOM ($2436 vs RM: $161, p = 0.020), total costs were comparable [IPOM: $12,415(8700-16,130) vs. RM: $9123(6789-11,457), p = 0.080]. CONCLUSION: Despite retromuscular repairs having lower postoperative complications than intraperitoneal onlay mesh repairs, both techniques offered encouraging results in robotic incisional hernia repair at a comparable total cost.

Early Experiences With Bundled Payments for Care Improvement for Major Bowel Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Bundled Payment (BP) models are becoming more common in surgery. We share our early experiences with Bundled Payments for Care Improvement for major bowel surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing major bowel surgery between January and October 2021 were identified using Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) codes. Major drivers of cost in a BP model are reported and compared to the Fee-For-Service (FFS) payment model. RESULTS: A total of 202 cases (173 FFS vs 29 BP) were analyzed. The mean BP cost per Clinical Episode was $28,340. Eleven patients (38%) in the BP model had costs greater than the Target Price. The drivers of cost in the BP model were 59% acute care facility, 17% physician services, 9% post-acute care facilities, 8% other, and 7% readmissions. Clinical Episode of care costs varied considerably by MS-DRG case complexity. Robotic surgery increased costs by 35% (mean increase $3724, P < .01). The 90-day readmission rate was 17% for a mean cost of $11,332 per readmission. Three patients (10%) were discharged to a skilled nursing facility at an average cost of $11,009, while fifteen patients (52%) received home health services at a mean cost of $2947. Acute care facility costs were similar in the BP vs FFS groups (mean difference $1333, P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing major bowel surgery are a heterogeneous population. Physicians are ideally positioned to deliver high-value, patient-centered care and are crucial to the success of a BP model. The post-acute care setting is a key component of improving efficiency and quality of care.

Outcomes following robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: This study elaborates on previous research to compare length of stay, complication rates, and total cost between patients undergoing robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and conventional total knee arthroplasty (cTKA). We hypothesized that patients undergoing rTKA would have reduced length of stay, lower complication rates, improved perioperative outcomes, and higher total healthcare costs than those undergoing cTKA. METHODS: Data were collected from the National Inpatient Sample Database Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project between the years 2016-2019. Patients undergoing rTKA and cTKA were identified under International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes (ICD-10-CM/PCS). Length of stay, specific complications, and total costs were examined at time point. SPSS (v 27.0 8, IBM Corp. Armonk, NY) was utilized to compare demographic and analytical statistics between rTKA and cTKA. rTKA and cTKA were compared both before and after propensity matching. RESULTS: 17,249 rTKA (3.09%) and 541,122 cTKA (96.91%) were included. Compared to cTKA patients, rTKA patients had reduced average length of stay of 1.91 days (p < 0.001), higher average total cost of $67133.34 (p < 0.001), reduced periprosthetic infection (OR = 0.027, p < 0.001), periprosthetic dislocation (OR = 0.117, p < 0.001), periprosthetic mechanical complication (OR = 0.315, p < 0.001), pulmonary embolism (OR = 0.358, p < 0.001), transfusion (OR = 0.366, p < 0.001), pneumonia (OR = 0.468, p = 0.002), deep vein thrombosis (OR = 0.479, p = 0.001), and blood loss anemia (OR = 0.728, p < 0.001). These differences remained statistically significant even after propensity matching. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports our hypothesis that rTKA is associated with fewer complications, but higher average total cost than cTKA. Our study shows that rTKA can be safely performed in older and sicker patients. Future studies assessing the impacts of these findings on patient reported outcomes would provide further insight into the benefits of rTKA. Furthermore, identifying patient specific factors that place them at risk for increased complications with cTKA as opposed to rTKA could provide surgeons insight on the method of TKA that maximizes patient outcomes while minimizing healthcare cost.

ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project for acute gallbladder pathology.

BACKGROUND: Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to the emergency department, but clinical evidence is limited. We aimed to compare the outcomes of emergent laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies in a large real-world database. METHODS: Patients who received emergent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomies from 2020 to 2022 were identified from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database, based on deidentified extraction of electronic health record data from US hospitals. Conversion to open or subtotal cholecystectomy and complications were defined using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic approach after balancing covariates. Cost analysis was performed with activity-based costing and adjustment for inflation. RESULTS: Of 26,786 laparoscopic and 3,151 robotic emergent cholecystectomy patients being included, 64% were female, 60% were ≥45 years, and 24% were obese. Approximately 5.5% patients presented with pancreatitis, and 4% each presenting with sepsis and biliary obstruction. After IPTW, distributions of all baseline covariates were balanced. Robotic cholecystectomy decreased odds of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93; p = 0.035), but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.60; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection, readmission, length of stay, hospital acquired conditions, bile duct injury or leak, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in hospital cost. CONCLUSION: Robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open and comparable complications, but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder diseases. Further work is required to assess the long-term implications of these differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Intersphincteric resection following robotic-assisted versus laparoscopy-assisted total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a multicentre propensity score analysis of 1571 patients.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (RaTME) may be associated with reduced conversion to an open approach and a higher rate of complete total mesorectal excision (TME); however, studies on its advantages in intersphincteric resection (ISR) are inadequate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study enroled consecutive patients who underwent RaTME and laparoscopy-assisted total mesorectal excision (LaTME) at four medical centres between January 2020 and March 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW), and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary outcome was the ISR rate. Secondary outcomes were coloanal anastomosis (CAA), conversion to open surgery, conversion to transanal TME, abdominoperineal resection, postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days, and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 1571 patients, 1211 and 450 underwent LaTME and RaTME, respectively, with corresponding ISR incidences of 5.3% and 8.4% ( P =0.024). After PSM and IPTW, RaTME remained associated with higher ISR rates (4.5% versus 9.4%, P =0.022 after PSM; 4.9% versus 9.2, P =0.005 after IPTW). This association remained in multivariate analysis after adjusting for other confounding factors. RaTME was further associated with a higher CAA rate, longer operating time, and higher hospitalization expenses. CONCLUSIONS: RaTME may facilitate ISR in middle and low rectal cancers, showing an independent association with a higher ISR incidence, with pathological outcomes and complications comparable to those of LaTME. However, it may also require a longer operating time and incur higher hospitalization expenses.

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. METHODS: 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. RESULTS: The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. CONCLUSION: RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential opportunities and possible competitiveness of Avatera robotic system (ARS) (Avateramedical, Germany), and perform predictive cost-analysis for its implementation and dissemination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our study employed a projective quantitative research design. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was used to map ARS internal competencies towards external contexts, and potential opportunities and risks in the robotic market. The ARS purchase and procedural costs were evaluated in two different scenarios. RESULTS: In the first scenario, setting the purchase cost of the Avatera at around $1.3-1.5 million, a total $400 procedural cost reduction compared to the RAS performed with the da Vinci Xi can be calculated. In the second scenario, with a purchase cos of the ARS of $700.000-800.000 and considering a 5-year period with an annual ARS volume of 500 procedures, only an additional $300 will be attributed to the robot itself. Our projections revealed that for an effective competition the purchase cost of ARS should range between $700.000 and $800.000 during the initial phase of market entry. The marketing strategy of the ARS should be oriented towards countries without any robotic system in operational use, followed by countries where the competition intensity in the marketplace is low. CONCLUSION: The introduction of new robotic systems will greatly affect and reshape the market of robotic surgery. The ARS has all the technical capacity ensuring the performance of high-quality surgical procedures. A fast spread and implementation of the ARS could be expected should the purchase and maintenance costs be kept low.

The impact of operative approach on postoperative outcomes and healthcare utilization after colectomy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate national trends in adoption of different surgical approaches for colectomy and compare clinical outcomes and resource utilization between approaches. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective inpatient left or right colectomy between 2010 and 2019 from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were classified by operative approach: open, minimally invasive: either laparoscopic or robotic. Postoperative outcomes assessed within index hospitalization include operating room time, hospital length of stay, rates of conversion to open surgery, reoperation, and complications. Post-discharge readmission, hospital-based encounters, and costs were collected to 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes between operative approaches adjusted for patient baseline characteristics and clustering within hospitals. RESULTS: Among 206,967 patients, the robotic approach rates increased from 2.1%/1.6% (2010) to 32.6%/26.8% (2019) for left/right colectomy, offset by a decrease in both open and laparoscopic approaches. Median length of stay for both left and right colectomies was significantly longer in open (6 days) and laparoscopic (5 days) compared to robotic surgery (4 days; all P values <.001). Robotic surgery compared to open and laparoscopic was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate, development of ileus, overall complications, and 30-day hospital encounters. Robotic surgery further demonstrated lower mortality, reoperations, postoperative bleeding, and readmission rates for left and right colectomies than open. Robotic surgery had significantly longer operating room times and higher costs than either open or laparoscopic. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in colon surgery, with outcomes equivalent and in some domains superior to laparoscopic.