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-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.

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.