Light and shadow of watch-and-wait strategy in rectal cancer: oncological result, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The watch-and-wait (WW) strategy is a potential option for patients with rectal cancer who obtain a complete clinic response after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study is to analyze the long-term oncological outcomes and perform a cost-effectiveness analysis in patients undergoing this strategy for rectal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data of patients treated with the WW strategy were prospectively collected from January 2015 to January 2020. A control group was created, matched 1:1 from a pool of 480 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. An independent company carried out the financial analysis. Clinical and oncological outcomes were analyzed in both groups. Outcome parameters included surgical and follow-up costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Forty patients were included in the WW group, with 40 patients in the surgical group. During a median follow-up period of 36 months, metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar in the two groups. In the WW group, nine (22%) local regrowths were detected in the first 2 years. The permanent stoma rate was slightly higher after salvage surgery in the WW group compared to the surgical group (48.5% vs 20%, p < 0.01). The cost-effectiveness analysis was slightly better for the WW group, especially for low rectal cancer compared to medium-high rectal cancer (ICER = - 108,642.1 vs ICER = - 42,423). CONCLUSIONS: The WW strategy in locally advanced rectal cancer offers similar oncological outcomes with respect to the surgical group and excellent results in quality of life and cost outcomes, especially for low rectal cancer. Nonetheless, the complex surgical field during salvage surgery can lead to a high permanent stoma rate; therefore, the careful selection of patients is mandatory.

Case-matched analysis of robotic versus open surgical enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A comparative cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Enucleation has widely spread as an alternative strategy in the treatment of small pancreatic tumours and cystic lesions. To date there are limited data on perioperative outcomes after pancreatic enucleation performed using a minimally invasive robotic technique, particularly regarding the risk factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). We perform a comparative study of robotic pancreatic enucleation (RPE) and open enucleation (OPE) with the aim of evaluating clinical and cost-effective outcomes. METHODS: This is a case-matched analysis of patients who underwent robotic and open pancreatic enucleation performed at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid, from October 2014 to December 2021. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. Clinicopathologic characteristics and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analysed. Two groups of demographically similar patients were analysed: the robotic group (n = 20) and the open group (n = 20). The patient characteristics of the two groups have been compared. From February 2015, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are also included and prospectively recorded in the database and used to measure the effectiveness of the treatment. RESULT: A total of 20 RPE and 20 OPE have been included. The incremental cost of the robotic approach versus open was €2617.85(CI 95% 1601.48; 3634.24) and the incremental utility was 0.0879 QALYs (CI 95% 0.0834; 0.0925). The estimated ICER for patients was €29,782.13 (CI 95% 17,313.29; 43,576.01) per QALY gained. Robotic resection resulted a shorter postoperative hospital stay, less wound infections, faster recovery diet and a similar operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Pathological data were similar for both procedures. CONCLUSION: RPE resulted in a shorter hospital stay and less blood loss and morbidity, comparable with the outcomes of open enucleation. RPE may also be acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis on costs and perioperative outcome.

AIM: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020. RESULTS: The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.18, 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: -2.62, 95% CI: -3.38 to -1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings. CONCLUSION: Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: cost-effectiveness analysis of trend modifications of the technique.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different modifications of the trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) repair of groin hernia. Data were collected prospectively for all consecutive patients who underwent TAPP unilateral inguinal hernia repair between November 2017 and March 2019, and who completed a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Costs and quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were collected. Three TAPP variations were assessed: mesh fixation and peritoneal closure with staples (group 1); mesh fixation with fibrin glue and peritoneal closure with sutures (group 2); and mesh fixation and peritoneal closure with fibrin glue (group 3). A matched group of open repairs was established. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and main intra-operative and post-operative outcomes were assessed. Overall 120 patients were included (group 1 n = 31; group 2 n = 27; group 3 n = 33; open group: 29). Operative time was shorter for groups 2 and 3, and the main post-operative outcomes were similar. The overall mean total cost of the open group (1185.95€) was lower compared with the laparoscopic group (group 1: 1682.39; group 2: 1538.54€; group 3: 1510.1€) (p = 0.026). However, the mean ICERs of groups 2 and 3 were significantly higher compared with group 1 (p = 0.021) and the open group (p = 0.032). At simulations analysis, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 33.32%, 36.26%, and 36.7% in TAPP groups 1, 2, and 3. In the long term, laparoscopic repair of groin hernia is cost-effective compared with open surgery. The use of fibrin glue for mesh fixation and/or for closing the peritoneum is the most cost-effective option and shortens operative times.

Robotic-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy, reporting for the first time in literature, a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: This is a case-matched prospective non-randomized study conducted from October 2013 to October 2017 at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma or adenoma, not suitable endoscopic resection were treated with robot-assisted right colectomy and a propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance preoperative characteristics of a laparoscopic control group. Perioperative, postoperative, long-term oncological results and costs were analysed, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000 and 30,000 per QALY was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost effective. RESULTS: Thirty-five robot-assisted right colectomies were included and a group of 35 laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy was selected. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with longer operation times (243 min vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in terms of total costs between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (9455.14 vs 8227.50 respectively, p = 0.21). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000, there was a 78.78-95.04% probability that the robotic group was cost effective relative to laparoscopic group. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted right colectomy is a safe and feasible technique and is a cost-effective procedure.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

AIM: There is no study in the literature that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). We performed a comparative study of RDP and LDP with the aim of evaluating clinical and cost-effective outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is an observational, comparative prospective nonrandomized study. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness to pay of €20 000 and €30 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost-effective. RESULTS: A total of 31 RDP and 28 LDP have been included. The overall mean total cost was similar in both groups (RDP: €9712.15 versus LDP: €9424.68; P > .5). Mean QALYs for RDP (0.652) was higher than that associated with LDP (0.59) (P > .5). CONCLUSION: This study seems to provide data of cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP approaches, showing some benefits for RDP.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis.

In the last decade, there have clearly been important changes in the surgical approach of gastric cancer treatment due to an increased interest in the minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS). The higher cost of robotic surgery procedures remains an important issue of debate. The objective of the study is to compare the main operative and clinical outcomes and to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the two techniques. This is a prospective cost-effectiveness and clinical study when comparing the robotic gastrectomy (RG) technique with open gastrectomy (OG) in gastric cancer. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The incremental utility was 0.038 QALYs and the estimated ICER for patients was dominated by robotic approach. The probability that the robotic approach was cost effective was 94.04% and 94.20%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY gained. RG for gastric cancer represents a cost-effective procedure compared with the standard OG.

Cost-effectiveness of Randomized Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and cost-effective outcomes of the open Lichtenstein repair (OL) and laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair for bilateral inguinal hernias. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: A cost-effective analysis of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair is still not well addressed, especially regarding bilateral hernia. METHODS: This is a clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis within a randomized prospective study conducted at Sanchinarro University Hospital.Cases of primary, reducible bilateral inguinal hernia were included and randomized using a simple randomization program.The outcome parameters included surgical and postoperative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Between March 2013 and January 2017, 165 patients were enrolled in this study (81 of them underwent TAPP and 84 OL).The TAPP procedure had less early postoperative pain (P = 0.037), a shorter length of stay (P = 0.001), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) when compared with the OL approach. The overall cost of TAPP procedure was higher compared with the OL cost (1,683.93&OV0556; vs 1192.83&OV0556;, P = 0.027). The mean QALYs at 1 year for TAPP (0.8094) was higher than that associated with OL (0.6765) (P = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 &OV0556; and 30,000 &OV0556;, there was a 95.38% and 97.96% probability that TAPP was more cost-effective relative to OL. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPP procedure for bilateral inguinal hernia appears to be more cost-effective compared with OL.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis.

BACKGROUND: The robotic surgery cost presents a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). METHODS: Data were abstracted prospectively from 2011 to 2017. An independent company performed the financial analysis. RESULTS: A total of 28 RDP and 26 LDP were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the LDP (294 vs 241 min; p = 0.02). The main intra and post-operative data were similar, except for the conversion rate (RDP: 3.6% vs LDP: 19.2%; p = 0.04) and hospital stay (RDP: 8.9 vs LDP 13.1 days; p = 0.04). The mean total costs were similar in both groups (RDP: 9198.64 € vs LDP: 9399.74 €; p > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: RDP showed lower conversion rate and shorter hospital stay than LDP at the price of longer operative time. RDP is financially comparable to LDP.

Preoperative Volumetric Assessment Matched with High-Field Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Stereotactic Evacuation of Brain Abscesses.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Stereotactic evacuation is currently accepted as a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the management of brain abscesses. Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (Io-MRI) is well established in neuro-oncology but its role has not been completely outlined for brain abscess surgery. The objective of this work is to analyze radiologic, clinical, and laboratory results in a cohort of patients with brain abscesses treated with an original protocol in which the minimally invasiveness of a stereotactic technique is matched with preoperative volumetric evaluation and Io-MRI. METHODS: For each of the 12 patients included in this cohort, the following data were recorded: age, sex, location, presentation, grade of evacuation, duration of follow-up, mean preoperative and postoperative Glasgow Outcome Scale score, functional outcome, number of abscess loculations, number of Io-MRI, duration of antibiotic therapy, preoperative and postoperative laboratory findings, pathogen strains and possible recurrences. RESULTS: The operative time was in 10/12 patients under 90 minutes. A total of 8/12 patients needed no more than 30 days of antibiotics; 9/12 patients had minor or no sequelae and returned to normal activities; only 1 recurrence of brain abscess was recorded in the sample. Only 1 death was recorded in the sample. CONCLUSIONS: Although this work is intended to present preliminary results of an original protocol for the management of brain abscess, the role of a precise preoperative volumetric evaluation matched with Io-MRI in the treatment of this disease seems of great benefit, as in surgical neuro-oncology.

Nanocrystalline silver: a systematic review of randomized trials conducted on burned patients and an evidence-based assessment of potential advantages over older silver formulations.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to collect data from randomized trials in burn patients and to analyze them with a meta-analytic approach to give a clear message of potential advantages of nanocrystalline silver (NC) versus older silver formulations (SS). A review of all-English prospective randomized trials that compared NC versus silver sulfadiazine or silver nitrate was conducted. Primary outcome was the evaluation of differences in the infection rate of burns. Secondary outcomes were the eventual differences in the pain experienced during medications, the length of hospitalization (LOS) and costs. Five articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected (n = 285 patients). The NC group had a significant lower incidence of infections compared with the SS group (9.5% vs. 27.8%, odds ratio: 0.14 [95% CI: 0.06-0.35]; chi2 test, P < 0.001), with a 2.9-fold decrease of the risk. Not all studies investigated the pain during change of dressings, LOS and costs. However, when data were available, these showed lower costs (US $1533 per patient for the SS group and US $946 per patient for the NC group) and decreased pain values in the NC group (Hedges' G: -1.44 [95% CI: -1.86/-1.01]; P < 0.0001), while contrasting results were obtained for LOS. Nanocrystalline silver is a relatively new product with a significant stronger antimicrobial activity compared with older formulations. Its long lasting properties reduce dressing change frequency and are probably responsible for the decreased pain and the minor costs experienced.