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.

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.

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.

Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of 3 Different Laparoscopic Approach for Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of 551 Cases.

BACKGROUND: At our institution, we switched from hand-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HRN) to hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HTN); we later switched to standard retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SRN). This study was performed to evaluate outcomes and hospital costs among the 3 techniques. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, single-center, inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis study compared the outcomes among 551 cases of living donor kidney transplantation between 2014 and 2022. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there were 114 cases in the HRN group, 204 cases in the HTN group, and 213 cases in the SRN group. Donor complication rates were lowest in the SRN group but did not differ between the HRN and HTN groups (1.1 vs 4.4 and 5.9%, P = .021). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest serum C-reactive protein concentrations on postoperative day 1 (4.3 vs 10.5 and 7.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the shortest postoperative stay (4.3 vs 7.4 and 8.4 days, P < .001). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest total cost among the 3 groups (8868 vs 9709 and 10,592 USD, P < .0001). Donors in the SRN group also had the lowest costs in terms of "basic medical fees," "medication and injection fees," "Intraoperative drug and material costs," and "testing fees." Furthermore, the presence of complications was significantly correlated with higher total hospital costs (P < .001). CONCLUSION: SRN appeared to have the least invasive and complication, and a potential cost savings compared with the HRN and HTN.

A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this systematic review of the literature is to compare a selection of currently utilized disposable and reusable laparoscopic medical devices in terms of safety (1st criteria), cost and carbon footprint. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was carried out on electronic databases for articles published up until 6 May 2022. The eligible works were prospective (randomized or not) or retrospective clinical or medical-economic comparative studies having compared disposable scissors, trocars, and mechanical endoscopic staplers to the same instruments in reusable. Two different independent examiners extracted the relevant data. RESULTS: Among the 2882 articles found, 156 abstracts were retained for examination. After comprehensive analysis concerning the safety and effectiveness of the instruments, we included four articles. A study on trocars highlighted increased vascular complications with disposable instruments, and another study found more perioperative incidents with a hybrid stapler as opposed to a disposable stapler. As regards cost analysis, we included 11 studies, all of which showed significantly higher costs with disposable instruments. The results of the one study on carbon footprints showed that hybrid instruments leave four times less of a carbon footprint than disposable instruments. CONCLUSION: The literature on the theme remains extremely limited. Our review demonstrated that from a medical and economic standpoint, reusable medical instruments, particularly trocars, presented appreciable advantages. While there exist few data on the ecological impact, those that do exist are unmistakably favorable to reusable instruments.

Clinical outcomes and cost comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients over 80 years.

PURPOSE: The growth of Singapore's geriatric population, coupled with the rise in colorectal cancer (CRC), has increased the number of colorectal surgeries performed on elderly patients. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus open elective colorectal resections in elderly CRC patients over 80 years. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) identified patients over 80 years undergoing elective colectomy and proctectomy between 2018 and 2021. Patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), 30-day postoperative complications, and mortality rates were analysed. Cost data in Singapore dollars were obtained from the finance database. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to determine cost drivers. The 5-year overall survival (OS) for the entire octogenarian CRC cohort with and without postoperative complications was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 192 octogenarian CRC patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between 2018 and 2021, 114 underwent laparoscopic resection (59.4%), while 78 underwent open surgery (40.6%). The proportion of proctectomy cases was similar between laparoscopic and open groups (24.6% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.949). Baseline characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index, albumin level, and tumour staging, were comparable between both groups. Median operative duration was 52.5 min longer in the laparoscopic group (232.5 vs. 180.0 min, P < 0.001). Both groups had no significant differences in postoperative complications and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. Median LOS was 6 days in the laparoscopic group compared to 9 days in the open group (P < 0.001). The mean total cost was 11.7% lower in the laparoscopic group (S$25,583.44 vs. S$28,970.85, P = 0.012). Proctectomy (P = 0.024), postoperative pneumonia (P < 0.001) and urinary tract infection (P < 0.001), and prolonged LOS > 6 days (P < 0.001) were factors contributing to increased costs in the entire cohort. The 5-year OS of octogenarians with minor or major postoperative complications was significantly lower than those without complications (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection is associated with significantly reduced overall hospitalization costs and decreased LOS compared to open resection among octogenarian CRC patients, with comparable postoperative outcomes and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. The extended operative time and higher consumables costs from laparoscopic resection were mitigated by the decrease in other inpatient hospitalization costs, including ward accommodation, daily treatment fees, investigation costs, and rehabilitation expenditures. Comprehensive perioperative care and optimised surgical approach to mitigate the impact of postoperative complications can improve survival in elderly patients undergoing CRC resection.

LAPAROSCOPIC AND LAPAROTOMY BARIATRIC SURGERY IN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL: ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS AND COMPLICATIONS?

BACKGROUND: Despite its increasing popularity, laparoscopy is not the option for bariatric surgeries performed in the Brazilian public health system. AIMS: To compare laparotomy and laparoscopic access in bariatric surgery, considering aspects such as morbidity, mortality, costs, and length of stay. METHODS: The study included 80 patients who were randomly assigned to perform a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. They were equally divided in two groups, laparoscopic and laparotomy. The results obtained in the postoperative period were evaluated and compared according to the Ministry of Health protocol, and later, in their outpatient returns. RESULTS: The surgical time was similar in both groups (p=0.240). The costs of laparoscopic surgery proved to be higher, mainly due to staplers and staples. The patients included in the laparotomy group presented higher rates of severe complications, such as incisional hernia (p<0.001). Costs related to social security and management of postoperative complications were higher in the open surgery group (R$ 1,876.00 vs R$ 34,268.91). CONCLUSIONS: The costs related to social security and treatment of complications were substantially lower in laparoscopic access when compared to laparotomy. However, considering the operative procedure itself, the laparotomy remained cheaper. Finally, the length of stay, the rate of complications, and return to labor had more favorable results in the laparoscopic route.

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.

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.

Nationwide Readmissions Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MISVHR) has been performed for almost 30 years; recently, there has been an accelerated adoption of the robotic platform leading to renewed comparisons to open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). The present study evaluates patterns and outcomes of readmissions for MISVHR and OVHR patients. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was queried for patients undergoing OVHR and MISVHR from 2016 to 2018. Demographic characteristics, complications, and 90-day readmissions were determined. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) vs laparoscopic hernia repair (LVHR). Standard statistical methods and logistic regression were used. RESULTS: Over the 3-year period, there were 25 795 MISVHR and 180 635 OVHR admissions. Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair was associated with a lower rate of 90-day readmission (11.3% vs 17.3%, P < .01), length of stay (LOS) (4.0 vs 7.9 days, P < .01), and hospital charges ($68,240 ± 75 680 vs $87,701 ± 73 165, P < .01), which remained true when elective and non-elective repairs were evaluated independently. Postoperative infection was the most common reason for readmission but was less common in the MISVHR group (8.4% vs 16.8%, P < .01). Robotic ventral hernia repair increased over the 3-year period and was associated with decreased LOS (3.7 vs 4.1 days, P < .01) and comparable readmissions (11.3% vs 11.2%, P = .74) to LVHR, but was nearly $20,000 more expensive. In logistic regression, OVHR, non-elective operation, urban-teaching hospital, increased LOS, comorbidities, and payer type were predictive of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Open ventral hernia repair was associated with increased LOS and increased readmissions compared to MISVHR. Robotic ventral hernia repair had comparable readmissions and decreased LOS to LVHR, but it was more expensive.

A prospective comparison of costs between robotics, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in endometrial cancer among women with Class III obesity or higher.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the immediate operating room (OR), inpatient, and overall costs between three surgical modalities among women with endometrial cancer (EC) and Class III obesity or higher. METHODS: A multicentre prospective observational study examined outcomes of women, with early stage EC, treated surgically. Resource use was collected for OR costs including OR time, equipment, and inpatient costs. Median OR, inpatient, and overall costs across surgical modalities were analyzed using an Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test among patients with BMI ≥ 40. RESULTS: Out of 520 women, 103 had a BMI ≥ 40. Among women with BMI ≥ 40: median OR costs were $4197.02 for laparotomy, $5524.63 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $7225.16 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p < 0.001) and median inpatient costs were $5584.28 for laparotomy, $3042.07 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $1794.51 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the median overall costs: $10 291.50 for laparotomy, $8412.63 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $9002.48 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p = 0.185). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in overall costs between the three surgical modalities in patient with BMI ≥ 40. Given the similar costs, any form of minimally invasive surgery should be promoted in this population.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic). METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Value Analysis of Methods of Inguinal Hernia Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Value is defined as health outcomes important to patients relative to cost of achieving those outcomes: Value = Quality/Cost. For inguinal hernia repair, Level 1 evidence shows no differences in long-term functional status or recurrence rates when comparing surgical approaches. Differences in value reside within differences in cost. The aim of this study is to compare the value of different surgical approaches to inguinal hernia repair: Open (Open-IH), Laparoscopic (Lap-IH), and Robotic (R-TAPP). METHODS: Variable and fixed hospital costs were compared among consecutive Open-IH, Lap-IH, and R-TAPP repairs (100 each) performed in a university hospital. Variable costs (VC) including direct materials, labor, and variable overhead ($/min operating room [OR] time) were evaluated using Value Driven Outcomes, an internal activity-based costing methodology. Variable and fixed costs were allocated using full absorption costing to evaluate the impact of surgical approach on value. As cost data is proprietary, differences in cost were normalized to Open-IH cost. RESULTS: Compared to Open-IH, VC for Lap-IH were 1.02X higher (including a 0.81X reduction in cost for operating room [OR] time). For R-TAPP, VC were 2.11X higher (including 1.36X increased costs for OR time). With allocation of fixed cost, a Lap-IH was 1.03X more costly, whereas R-TAPP was 3.18X more costly than Open-IH. Using equivalent recurrence as the quality metric in the value equation, Lap-IH decreases value by 3% and R-TAPP by 69% compared to Open-IH. CONCLUSIONS: Use of higher cost technology to repair inguinal hernias reduces value. Incremental health benefits must be realized to justify increased costs. We expect payors and patients will incorporate value into payment decisions.

Comparison of Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) against Laparoscopic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy (LASH) for menorrhagia treatment: An economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: This economic evaluation and literature review was conducted with the primary aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) with NICE's gold-standard treatment of Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) for menorrhagia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from an NHS perspective, using data from two European studies to compare the treatments. Individual costs and benefits were assessed within one year of having the intervention. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated, followed by sensitivity analysis. Expected Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYS) and costs to the NHS were calculated alongside health net benefits (HNB) and monetary net benefits (MNB). RESULTS: A QALY gain of 0.069 was seen in use of LNG-IUS compared to LASH. This yielded a MNB between -£44.99 and -£734.99, alongside a HNB between -0.0705 QALYs and -0.106 QALYS. Using a £20,000-£30,000/QALY limit outlined by NICE,this showed the LNG-IUS to be more cost-effective than LASH, with LASH exceeding the upper bound of the £30,000/QALY limit. Sensitivity analysis lowered the ICER below the given threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER demonstrates it would not be cost-effective to replace the current gold-standard LNG-IUS with LASH, when treating menorrhagia in the UK. The ICER's proximity to the threshold and its high sensitivity alludes to the necessity for further research to generate a more reliable cost-effectiveness estimate. However, LASH could be considered as a first line treatment option in women with no desire to have children.

Post robotic investment: Cost consequences and impact on length of stay for obese women with endometrial cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to investigate whether robotic-assisted surgery is associated with lower incremental resource use among obese patients relative to non-obese patients after a Danish nationwide adoption of robotic-assisted surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer. This is a population-based cohort study based on registers and clinical data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All women who underwent surgery (robotic, laparoscopic and laparotomy) from 2008 to 2015 were included and divided according to body mass index (<30 and ≥30). Robotic-assisted surgery was gradually introduced in Denmark (2008-2013). We compared resource use post-surgery in obese vs non-obese women who underwent surgery before and after a nationwide adoption of robotic-assisted surgery. The key exposure variable was exposure to robotic-assisted surgery. Clinical and sociodemographic data were linked with national register data to determine costs and bed days 12 months before and after surgery applying difference-in-difference analyses. RESULTS: In total, 3934 women were included. The adoption of robotic-assisted surgery did not demonstrate statistically significant implications for total costs among obese women (€3,417; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€854 to €7,688, p = 0.117). Further, for obese women, a statistically significant reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization was demonstrated (-1.9 bed days; 95% CI -3.6 to -0.2, p = 0.025). However, for non-obese women, the adoption of robotic-assisted surgery was associated with statistically significant total costs increments of €9,333 (95% CI €3,729-€1,4936, p = 0.001) and no reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization was observed (+0.9 bed days; 95% CI -0.6 to 2.3, p = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: The national investment in robotic-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer seems to have more modest cost implications post-surgery for obese women. This may be partly driven by a significant reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization among obese women, as well as reductions in subsequent hospitalizations.

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.

State-Level Examination of Clinical Outcomes and Costs for Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach to Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Published studies evaluating the effect of robotic assistance on clinical outcomes and costs of care in diaphragmatic hernia repair (DHR) have been limited. STUDY DESIGN: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for Florida were queried to identify patients undergoing transabdominal DHR between 2011 and 2018 and associated inpatient and outpatient encounters within 12 months after the index operation. Patients undergoing robotic DHR were 1:1:1 propensity score-matched for age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidity score, case priority, payer, and facility volume with patients undergoing open and laparoscopic DHR. RESULTS: There were 5,962 patients (67.3%) who underwent laparoscopic DHR, 1,520 (17.2%) who underwent open DHR, and 1,376 (15.5%) who underwent robotic DHR. On comparison of matched cohorts, median index length of stay (3 days; interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 5 days vs 2 days; IQR 1 to 4 days; p < 0.001) and index hospitalization costs ($17,236; IQR $13,231 to $22,183 vs $12,087; IQR $8,881 to $17,439; p < 0.001) for robotic DHR were greater than for laparoscopic DHR. Median length of stay for open DHR (6 days; IQR 4 to 10 days) was longer than that for both laparoscopic and robotic DHR. Median index hospitalization costs for open DHR ($16,470; IQR $11,152 to $23,768) were greater than those for laparoscopic DHR, but less than those for robotic DHR. There were no significant differences between cohorts in the overall rate of post-index care. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic DHR is the most cost-effective approach to DHR. Robotic assistance provides clinical outcomes comparable with laparoscopic DHR, but is associated with increased index cost.