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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Activity-Based Cost Analysis of Robotic Anatomic Lung Resection During Program Implementation.

BACKGROUND: While robotic-assisted lung resection has seen a significant rise in adoption, concerns remain regarding initial programmatic outcomes and potential increased costs. We present our initial outcomes and cost analysis since initiation of a robotic lung resection program. METHODS: Patients undergoing either video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmentectomy (VATS) or robotic-assisted lobectomy or segmentectomy (RALS) between August of 2014 and January of 2017 underwent retrospective review. Patients underwent 1:1 propensity matching based on preoperative characteristics. Perioperative and 30-day outcomes were compared between groups. Detailed activity-based costing analysis was performed on individual patient encounters taking into effect direct and indirect controllable costs, including robotic operative supplies. RESULTS: There were no differences in 30-day mortality between RALS (n = 74) and VATS (n = 74) groups (0% vs 1.4%; P = 1). RALS patients had a decreased median length of stay (4 days vs 7 days; P < .001) and decreased median chest tube duration (3 days vs 5 days, P < .001). Total direct costs, including direct supply costs, were not significantly different between RALS and VATS ($6621 vs $6483; P = .784). Median total operating costs and total unit support costs, which are closely correlated to length of stay, were lower in the RALS group. Overall median controllable costs were significantly different between RALS and VATS ($16,352 vs $21,154; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: A potentially cost-advantageous robotic-assisted pulmonary resection program can be initiated within the context of an existing minimally invasive thoracic surgery program while maintaining good clinical outcomes when compared with traditional VATS. Process-of-care changes associated with RALS may account for decreased costs in this setting.

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.

Index Surgery Cost of Fluoroscopic Freehand Versus Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement in Lumbar Instrumentation: An Age, Sex, and Approach-Matched Cohort Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery costs are notoriously high, and there are already criticisms and concerns over the economic effects. There is no consensus on cost variation with robot-assisted spine fusion (rLF) compared with a manual fluoroscopic freehand (fLF) approach. This study looks to compare the early costs between the robotic method and the freehand method in lumbar spine fusion. METHODS: rLFs by one spine surgeon were age, sex, and approach-matched to fLF procedures by another spine surgeon. Variable direct costs, readmissions, and revision surgeries within 90 days were reviewed and compared. RESULTS: Thirty-nine rLFs were matched to 39 fLF procedures. No significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes. rLF had higher total encounter costs (P < 0.001) and day-of-surgery costs (P = 0.005). Increased costs were mostly because of increased supply cost (0.0183) and operating room time cost (P < 0.001). Linear regression showed a positive relationship with operating room time and cost in rLF (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: rLF is associated with a higher index surgery cost. The main factor driving increased cost is supply costs, with other variables too small in difference to make a notable financial effect. rLF will become more common, and other institutions may need to take a closer financial look at this more novel instrumentation before adoption.

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.