Protocol of a multicentre, prospective cohort study that evaluates cost-effectiveness of two perioperative care strategies for potential obstructive sleep apnoea in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, OSA is undiagnosed in the majority of patients and thus untreated. While untreated OSA is associated with an increased risk of preoperative and postoperative complications, no evidence-based guidelines on perioperative care for these patients are available. The aim of the POPCORN study (Post-Operative Pulse oximetry without OSA sCreening vs perioperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment following OSA scReeNing by polygraphy (PG)) is to evaluate which perioperative strategy is the most cost-effective for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery without a history of OSA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre observational cohort study, data from 1380 patients who will undergo bariatric surgery will be collected. Patients will receive either postoperative care with pulse oximetry monitoring and supplemental oxygen during the first postoperative night, or care that includes preoperative PG and CPAP treatment in case of moderate or severe OSA. Local protocols for perioperative care in each participating hospital will determine into which cohort a patient is placed. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness, which will be calculated by comparing all healthcare costs with the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, calculated using EQ-5D questionnaires). Secondary outcomes are mortality, complications within 30 days after surgery, readmissions, reoperations, length of stay, weight loss, generic quality of life (QOL), OSA-specific QOL, OSA symptoms and CPAP adherence. Patients will receive questionnaires before surgery and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery to report QALYs and other patient-reported outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from the Medical Research Ethics Committees United was granted in accordance with the Dutch law for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) (reference number W17.050). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6991.

Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic rectopexy has become one of the most advocated treatments for full-thickness rectal prolapse, offering good functional results compared with open surgery and resulting in less postoperative pain and faster convalescence. However, laparoscopic rectopexy can be technically demanding. Once having mastered dexterity, with robotic assistance, laparoscopic rectopexy can be performed faster. Moreover, it shortens the learning curve in simple laparoscopic tasks. This may lead to faster and safer laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted rectopexy has been proven safe and feasible; however, until now, no study has been performed comparing costs and time consumption in conventional laparoscopic rectopexy vs. robot-assisted rectopexy. METHODS: Our first 14 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy were reviewed and compared with 19 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectopexy in the same period. RESULTS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operating time was 39 minutes longer, and costs were euro 557.29 (or: dollars 745.09) higher. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure but results in increased time and higher costs than conventional laparoscopy.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: a comparative retrospective study on costs and time consumption.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication offers clear benefits for our patients, but requires advanced laparoscopic skills. Robotic assistance in laparoscopic antireflux surgery improves dexterity skills and shortens learning curve, possibly leading to faster, more precise, and safer laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: We review our first 11 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication using the 4-armed daVinci surgical system, comparing them with patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the same period. RESULTS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication did not result in more complications. However, the use of robotic assistance took an extra-47 minutes to complete the operation and costs were raised with an accessory euro 987.47. CONCLUSIONS: The use of robotic assistance in laparoscopic antireflux surgery is safe and feasible, but results in longer operating time and higher costs compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery without proven benefit at this moment.

First results after introduction of the four-armed da Vinci Surgical System in fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy offers less post-operative pain, less complications, and faster recovery compared with open cholecystectomy. However, laparoscopic surgery can be demanding because of several technical drawbacks. Robotic surgery allows dexterity skills to be performed faster and shortens the learning curve, possibly leading to faster and safer laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: In this paper, we report the results of our first 12 cases of fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the da Vinci Surgical System, comparing them with 12 cases of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Using a fourth arm in robotic laparoscopy enables the surgeon to perform surgery without the use of a tableside assistant, leading to non-tiring, tremble-free assistance and reducing salary costs. Primary end points are operating time and costs. Secondary end points are operative complications and duration of admission. RESULTS: Fully robotic cholecystectomy was completed in all 12 cases without increased complication rate and without conversions. However, robotic assistance results in an increased overall operating room stay of 31 min and increased costs of EUR 1,180.62. CONCLUSION: Fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible but seems more expensive and time consuming at this moment.