ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project for acute gallbladder pathology.

BACKGROUND: Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to the emergency department, but clinical evidence is limited. We aimed to compare the outcomes of emergent laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies in a large real-world database. METHODS: Patients who received emergent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomies from 2020 to 2022 were identified from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database, based on deidentified extraction of electronic health record data from US hospitals. Conversion to open or subtotal cholecystectomy and complications were defined using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic approach after balancing covariates. Cost analysis was performed with activity-based costing and adjustment for inflation. RESULTS: Of 26,786 laparoscopic and 3,151 robotic emergent cholecystectomy patients being included, 64% were female, 60% were ≥45 years, and 24% were obese. Approximately 5.5% patients presented with pancreatitis, and 4% each presenting with sepsis and biliary obstruction. After IPTW, distributions of all baseline covariates were balanced. Robotic cholecystectomy decreased odds of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93; p = 0.035), but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.60; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection, readmission, length of stay, hospital acquired conditions, bile duct injury or leak, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in hospital cost. CONCLUSION: Robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open and comparable complications, but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder diseases. Further work is required to assess the long-term implications of these differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

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.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Using Robotic Versus Hand-Held Staplers During Robotic Lobectomy.

OBJECTIVE: During robotic lobectomy (RL), the surgeon can elect to use either robotic staplers or hand-held laparoscopic staplers. It is assumed that either will result in similar outcomes, while robotic staplers increase cost. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes and costs between RL cases that utilized robotic staplers versus hand-held staplers in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Patients who underwent an elective RL between October 2015 and December 2017 were identified in the Premier Hospital Perspective Database. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and costs between cases using robotic staplers and hand-held staplers during RL. RESULTS: In the PSM analysis, RL cases that fully utilized robotic staplers compared to hand-held staplers were associated with significantly lower risks of developing bleeding (5.6% vs 9.8%, P = 0.03) and conversion to open surgery (0.3% vs 5.9%, P = 0.004). Additionally, in a multivariable regression analysis, robotic stapler was associated with reduced risk for air leak (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.98) and overall complications (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99). The total index hospitalization costs were comparable between the 2 groups (median [IQR], $21,667 [$16,860-$29,033] in robotic stapler vs $21,398 [$17,258-$29,406] in hand-held stapler, P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Among RL cases, utilization of robotic staplers was associated with significantly lower risks of perioperative bleeding, conversion, and possibly air leak and overall complications compared to RL cases utilizing hand-held staplers. The choice of stapler may have an impact on outcomes and robotic staplers do not increase total costs.

The Early (2009-2017) Experience With Robot-assisted Cholecystectomy in New York State.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine real-life patterns of care and patient outcomes associated with robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) in New York State (NYS). BACKGROUND: Although robotic assistance may offer some technological advantages, RACs are associated with higher procedural costs and longer operating times compared to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs). Evidence on long-term patient outcomes after RAC from large population-based datasets remains limited and inconsistent. METHODS: Using NYS inpatient and ambulatory surgery data from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2009-2017), we conducted bivariate and multivariate analyses to examine patterns of utilization, complications, and secondary procedures following cholecystectomies. RESULTS: Among 299,306 minimally invasive cholecystectomies performed in NYS between 2009 and 2017, one thousand one hundred eighteen (0.4%) were robot-assisted. Compared to those undergoing LC, RAC patients were older, travelled further for surgery, and were more likely to have public insurance and preoperative comorbidities. RAC versus LC patients were more significantly likely to have conversions to open procedure (4.9% vs 2.8%), bile duct injuries (1.3% vs 0.4%), and major reconstructive interventions (0.6% vs 0.1%), longer median length of stay (3 vs 1 day), readmissions (7.3% vs 4.4%), and higher 12-month post-index surgery hospital charges (P < 0.01 for all estimates). Other postoperative complications decreased over time for LC but remained unchanged for RAC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving RAC in NYS experienced higher rates of complications compared to LC patients. Addressing patient-, surgeon-, and system-level factors associated with intra/postoperative complications and applying recently promulgated safe cholecystectomy strategies coupled with advanced imaging modalities like fluorescence cholangiography to RAC may improve patient outcomes.

The impact of obesity on minimally invasive colorectal surgery: A report from the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Operating on obese patients can increase case complexity and result in worse outcomes. We described the incremental impact of BMI on morbidity and outcomes of colorectal operations and whether laparoscopic and robotic(MIS) approaches mitigate this morbidity differently. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal operations in SCOAP was created to examine the association of increasing BMI on surgical outcomes. Additionally, multivariable logistic regression models were constructed. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2019, 22,863 elective colorectal operations (mean age 62, 55% female) were performed at 42 hospitals. Patients had BMI≥30 in 7576(33%) and BMI≥40 in 1180(5%) of operations. After risk adjustment, BMI≥40 was associated with increased conversions(OR1.57,95%CI1.26-1.96), increased combined adverse events(CAE)(OR1.32,95%CI1.15-1.52), and death(OR2.24, 95%CI1.41-3.55)(all p < 0.01). MIS approaches were each associated with lower CAE(lap OR0.49,95%CI0.46-0.53; robot OR0.42,95%CI0.37-0.47), and death(lap OR0.24,95%CI0.18-0.33; robot OR0.18,95%CI0.10-0.35)(all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Severe obesity is associated with increased conversion rates and worse short-term outcomes after colorectal surgery, though this trend is partially mitigated with a minimally invasive approach. These findings support the broad application of MIS for colorectal operations in obese patients.

Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: Economic and clinical outcomes in the Brazilian healthcare.

Laparoscopic surgery has become the preferred surgical approach of several colorectal conditions. However, the economic results of this are quite controversial. The degree of adoption of laparoscopic technology, as well as the aptitude of the surgeons, can have an influence not only in the clinical outcomes but also in the total procedure cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgeries, compared to open procedures in Brazil.All patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries between January 2012 and December 2013 were eligible to the retrospective cohort. The considered follow-up period was within 30 days from the index procedure. The outcomes evaluated were the length of stay, blood transfusion, intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, use of antibiotics, the development of anastomotic leakage, readmission, and the total hospital costs including re-admissions.Two hundred eighty patients, who met the eligibility criteria, were included in the analysis. Patients in the laparoscopic group had a shorter length of stay in comparison with the open group (6.02 ±â€Š3.86 vs 9.86 ±â€Š16.27, P < .001). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. The total costs were similar between the 2 groups, in the multivariate analysis (generalized linear model ratio of means 1.20, P = .074). The cost predictors were the cancer diagnosis and age.Laparoscopic colorectal surgery presents a 17% decrease in the duration of the hospital stay without increasing the total hospitalization costs. The factors associated with increased hospital costs were age and the diagnosis of cancer.

Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively. RESULTS: Of 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

An audit of interval cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in a low resource healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) is advocated over open cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (AC) as it decreases hospital costs with no increase in morbidity and mortality. The applicability of ELC for AC in a resource limited setting has not been reported. This study reviewed patients with AC at a regional state hospital in South Africa to analyse presentation delays and the related surgical strategies. METHODS: Adult patients admitted to King Edward VIII Hospital with a diagnosis of AC were included in the study. The admission, operation and discharge records were used to collect data. The severity of the cholecystitis, the time taken to present to the referral facility, the time taken to present to the regional hospital, time to operation, type of operation, conversion rates and complications were evaluated. Early presentation was recorded for two different cut-off times within 72 hours or 7 days of symptom onset. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 47 (range 19-74) years and 86% were female. Forty-nine per cent of patients presented within 7 days and of these only 4.4% presented within 72 hours. A median of 64 days from time of admission to operative intervention was noted. All patients were considered for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC); there was a conversion rate of 26%. No major complications were documented. CONCLUSION: Interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears a reliable option in under-resourced healthcare systems.

Incidental Durotomy During Endoscopic Stenosis Lumbar Decompression: Incidence, Classification, and Proposed Management Strategies.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to review the types of incidental durotomies (IDs) that occurred during the endoscopic stenosis lumbar decompression through interlaminar approach (ESLD) and discuss the management strategies according to our classification. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was performed for patients with spinal stenosis who underwent ESLD. Out of 330 patients, 27 patients of ID were clinically evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively on the basis of a visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index, and MacNab's criteria. ID patterns are classified according to the size, location, and involvement of neural elements. Intraoperative and postoperative surgical management was evaluated. RESULTS: Intraoperative incidence of ID was 8.2%. According to lumbar levels, 11 (40.7%) occurred at L3-4, 12 (44.4%) at L4-5, and 4 (14.8%) at L5-S1 ID cases. IDs were divided into 4 types: 29.6% are type 1, 70% are type 2, 7.4% are type 3, and 3.7% are type 4. Overall for mean and standard deviation preoperative, 1 week postoperative, 3 months, and final follow-up for visual analog scale are 7.6 ± 1.4, 3.3 ± 1.1, 2.6 ± 1.1, and 1.9 ± 1.3, and for Oswestry Disability Index are 74.5 ± 9.0, 32.3 ± 9.4, 27.3 ± 7.2, and 24.4 ± 6.5 after patch blocking dura repair of ID. CONCLUSIONS: ID is a more common surgical complication in ESLD compared with the transforaminal approach. The endoscopic patch blocking dura repair technique should be considered in type 1 to type 3A of dura tear with good prognosis and clinical outcome. Consideration is made for conversion to open repair in types 3B, 3C and 4 dura tears with fair to poor outcome.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and the cost of conversion.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is preferred for distal pancreatectomy but is not always attempted due to the risk of conversion to open. We hypothesized that the total cost for MIS converted to open procedures would be comparable to those that started open. METHODS: A prospectively collected institutional registry (2011-2017) was reviewed for demographic, clinical, and perioperative cost data for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS: There were 80 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy: 41 open, 39 MIS (11 laparoscopic and 28 robotic). Conversion to open occurred in 14 of 39 (36%, 3 laparoscopic and 11 robotic). Length of stay was shorter for the MIS completed (6 days; range, 3-8), and MIS converted to open (7 days; range, 4-10) groups, compared with open (10 days; range, 5-36; P = .003). Laparoscopic cases were the least expensive (P = .02). Robotic converted to open procedures had the highest operating room cost. However, the total cost for robotic converted to open cohort was similar to the open cohort due to cost savings associated with a shorter length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher intraoperative costs of robotic surgery, there is no significant overall financial penalty for conversion to open. Financial considerations should not play a role in selecting a robotic or open approach.

A Population-Based Study of 90-Day Hospital Cost and Utilization Associated With Robotic Surgery in Colon and Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer remains contentious with most data arising from small, single-institution studies. METHODS: Stage I-III colorectal cancer resections from 2008 to 2014 were identified in New York State. Propensity score-adjusted negative binomial models were used to compare cost and utilization between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections. RESULTS: A total of 12,218 patients were identified. For colectomy, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 3%, and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 13%. For rectal resection, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 7% and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 32%. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in cost across the surgical approaches, both in overall and stratified analyses. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with decreased 90-d hospital utilization compared with open surgery in intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections were not associated with a hospital cost benefit after 90 d compared with open but were associated with decreased hospital utilization. Conversion to open resection was common, and efforts should be made to prevent them. Future research should continue to measure how robotic and laparoscopic approaches can add value to the health care system.

Outcomes and impact of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus open inguinal hernia repair on healthcare spending and employee absenteeism.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the impact of open (OIHR) versus laparoscopic (LIHR) inguinal hernia repair on healthcare spending and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: The TRUVEN database was queried using ICD9 procedure codes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted IHR, from 2012 to 2013. Patients > 18 years of age and continuously enrolled for 12 months postoperatively were included. Demographics, patient comorbidities, postoperative complications, pain medication use, length of hospital stay, missed work hours, postoperative visits, and overall expenditure were collected, and assessed at time of surgery and at 30-, 60-, 90-, 180-, and 365-days postoperatively. Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS, with α = 0.05. RESULTS: 66,116 patients were included (LIHR: N = 23,010; OIHR: N = 43,106). Robotic-assisted procedures were excluded due to small sample size (N = 61). The largest demographic was males between 55 and 64 years. LIHR had fewer surgical wound complications than OIHR (LIHR: 0.3%; OIHR: 0.5%, p = 0.007), less utilization of pain medication (LIHR: 23.3%; OIHR: 28.5%; p < 0.001), and fewer outpatient visits. In the 90-day postoperative period, LIHR had significantly fewer missed work hours (LIHR: 12.1 ± 23.2 h; OIHR: 12.9 ± 26.7 h, p = 0.023). LIHR had higher postoperative urinary complications (LIHR: 0.2%; OIHR: 0.1%; p < 0.001), consistent with the current literature. LIHR expenditures ($15,030 ± $25,906) were higher than OIHR ($13,303 ± 32,014), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the benefits of laparoscopic repair with regard to surgical wound complications, postoperative pain, outpatient visits, and missed work hours. These improved outcomes with respect to overall healthcare spending and employee absenteeism support the paradigm shift toward laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs, in spite of higher overall expenditures.

Management and Outcomes of Acute Appendicitis in the Presence of Cirrhosis: A Nationwide Analysis.

Best management for acute appendicitis (AA) in adults with liver cirrhosis is controversial and needs more investigation. We aimed to examine the impact of different treatment modalities on outcomes in this complex patient population. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2012 to 2014 was queried to identify AA patients with no cirrhosis, compensated cirrhosis (CC), and decompensated cirrhosis (DC). Each cohort was further stratified according to the treatment type: nonoperative management, open appendectomy, and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Chi-square, ANOVA, and binary regression analyses were used to determine differences between groups and risk factors for mortality and complications, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. A total of 108,289 AA patients were analyzed; of those, 304 with CC and 134 with DC were identified. Compared with CC and no cirrhosis, DC patients had significantly higher mortality, higher cost, and longer hospital length of stay. LA is accompanied by higher survival, lower cost, shorter duration of hospitalization, and lower incidence of complications across all groups. We conclude that LA is the best management strategy for AA in cirrhotic patients. Even in decompensated cirrhotics, which are associated with worse clinical outcomes, LA is still a favorable option over open appendectomy and nonoperative management.

Conversion Total Knee Arthroplasty Needs Its Own Diagnosis-Related Group Code.

BACKGROUND: Conversion from a prior knee procedure has been demonstrated to require greater operative times and resources, but still lacks a separate procedural or facility code from primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is to determine differences in facility costs between patients who underwent primary TKA and those who underwent conversion TKA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing primary TKA at 2 hospitals from 2015 to 2017, comparing itemized facility costs between primary and conversion TKA patients. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for increased facility costs, the need for additional implants, length of stay, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Of 2447 TKA procedures, 678 (27.7%) underwent conversion TKA, which was associated with greater implant costs ($3931.47 vs $2864.67, P = .0120) and total facility costs in a multivariate regression ($94.30 increase, P = .0316). When controlling for confounding variables, patients with a prior ligament reconstruction ($402 increase, P = .0002) and prior open reduction and internal fixation ($847 increase, P = .0020) had higher costs and were more likely to require stemmed implants (P < .05). There was an increase in TKA implant cost by $538 in patients with implants from a prior procedure (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Conversion TKA is associated with greater implant and inpatient facility costs than primary TKA, particularly those who had a history of an open knee procedure. A separate diagnosis-related group should be created for conversion TKA given the increased cost and complexity of these procedures compared to primary TKA.

The heavy price of conversion from laparoscopic to open procedures for emergent cholecystectomies.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard operative intervention for gallbladder disease. Complications may necessitate conversion to an open cholecystectomy (OC). This study aims to determine the cost-consequences of laparoscopic-to-open conversion using a nationally-representative sample. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample (2007-2011), adult patients undergoing emergent LC were identified. Patients undergoing secondary-conversion to OC were subsequently identified. Multivariable regression analyses, accounting for differences in propensity-quintile, mortality, length of stay, and hospital-level factors were then performed to assess for differences in the odds of conversion and total predicted mean costs per index-hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 225,805 observations, conversion to open occurred in 1.86% (n = 4203) of cases. Increased age, African-American ethnicity, public-insurance and teaching-hospital status were associated with a higher likelihood of conversion (p < 0.05) after risk-adjustment. Risk-adjusted odds of conversion increased by 34% (95%CI:1.33-1.36) for each day surgery was delayed. Risk-adjusted costs, were 259% higher (absolute-difference $23,358,p < 0.05) with conversion. Mortality was higher amongst patients undergoing conversion to open (4.98% vs 0.34%,p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy are at an increased risk of receiving disparate care and increased mortality.

Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points. RESULTS: 13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.

Hepatic Pedicle Occlusion with the Pringle Maneuver During Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Reduces the Conversion Rate.

BACKGROUND: In the presence of cholecystitis or portal hypertension, hemorrhage is common during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) because the vessels of Calot's triangle are fragile and tortuous. Bleeding can obstruct surgical field visibility and increase conversion rates and risk of common bile duct injury. The Pringle maneuver is a simple occlusion approach that could limit blood flow from the hepatic pedicle, thus controlling bleeding to provide a clear surgical field to reduce conversion rate. In this study, we aimed to investigate the feasibility, effectiveness and safety of hepatic pedicle occlusion with the Pringle maneuver during difficult LC. METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, LC with hepatic pedicle occlusion by the Pringle maneuver was performed in 67 patients (Pringle group). Another group of 67 cases with matched clinical parameters where LC was performed without the Pringle maneuver (non-Pringle group) was retrieved from a database to serve as the control group. RESULTS: The Pringle group had a significantly lower conversion rate (1.49% vs. 11.9%; P = 0.038), less blood loss (37.5 ± 24.1 mL vs. 94.5 ± 67.8 mL; P = 0.002), shorter postoperative hospitalization (2.5 ± 1.4 days vs. 3.5 ± 2.5 days; P = 0.005), and lower cost ($1343 ± $751 USD vs. $1674 ± $609 USD; P = 0.024) than non-Pringle group. There was one case each of bile duct injury and readmission within 30 days because of bile leakage in the non-Pringle group, but none in the Pringle group. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic pedicle occlusion could provide a clear surgical field and enable the recognition of structures during LC. The Pringle maneuver offers a feasible and safe approach to lower conversion rates in difficult LC.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopy: Expensive but Considerable Step Between Laparoscopic and Open Colectomy.

PURPOSE: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) have been shown to have comparable short-term outcomes while there are limited data regarding costs. The aim of our study was to compare the short-term outcomes and costs of HALC and LAC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 46 patients who underwent HALC or LAC for benign or malignant disease between January 2011 and December 2014 at our institution were included in the study. Patients were randomized into HALC or LAC group. Patients' demographics and characteristics, operative details, short-term outcomes, and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 25 patients in LAC group and 21 patients in HALC group. Patient's demographics and characteristics and short-term outcomes were comparable between the LAC and HALC groups. Conversion rate was significantly lower in the HALC group (4.7% vs. 28%, P=0.03) while surgical costs ($1706.83±203.70 vs. $1304.93±305.67, P=0.038) and total costs ($2427.18±254.27 vs. $2044.03±215.22, P=0.021) were significantly higher in HALC group. CONCLUSIONS: HALC is associated with increased surgical and total hospital costs, and decreased rate of conversion. Although it is more expensive, HALC may be helpful by providing a step between LAC and open surgery before considering conversion.

Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of robotic colorectal resections for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic literature review.

The purpose of this study was to assess outcome measures and cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal resections in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The Cochrane Library, PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were reviewed, using the text "robotic(s)" AND ("inflammatory bowel disease" OR "Crohn's" OR "Ulcerative Colitis"). Two investigators screened abstracts for eligibility. All English language full-text articles were reviewed for specified outcomes. Data were presented in a summarised and aggregate form, since the lack of higher-level evidence studies precluded meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included mortality and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included readmission rate, length of stay, conversion rate, procedure time, estimated blood loss and functional outcome. The tertiary outcome was cost-effectiveness. Eight studies (3 case-matched observational studies, 4 case series and 1 case report) met the inclusion criteria. There was no reported mortality. Overall, complications occurred in 81 patients (54%) including 30 (20%) Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications. Mean length of stay was 8.6 days. Eleven cases (7.3%) were converted to open. The mean robotic operating time was 99 min out of a mean total operating time of 298.6 min. Thirty-two patients (24.7%) were readmitted. Functional outcomes were comparable among robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches. Case-matched observational studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery revealed a significantly longer procedure time; however, conversion, complication, length of stay and readmission rates were similar. The case-matched observational study comparing robotic to open surgery also revealed a longer procedure time and a higher readmission rate; postoperative complication rates and length of stay were similar. No studies compared cost-effectiveness between robotic and traditional approaches. Although robotic resections for inflammatory bowel disease are technically feasible, outcomes must be interpreted with caution due to low-quality studies.

Comparison of Risk-Adjusted Outcomes in Medicare Open versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

More than 90 per cent of cholecystectomies are performed laparoscopically and this has resulted in concern that surgeons will not have sufficient experience to perform open procedures when clinical circumstances require it. We reviewed the open cholecystectomies (OCs) of Medicare patients from 2010 to 2012 in hospitals with 20 or more cases, created risk-adjusted models for adverse outcomes which were evaluated for 90-days after discharge, and compared the hospital-level outcomes with laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in the same hospitals for the same period of time. Results demonstrated that inpatient deaths, inpatient prolonged length-of-stay outliers, 90-day postdischarge deaths without readmission, and 90-day readmissions were statistically the same with an overall adverse outcome rate of 21.6 per cent in OC versus 20.9 per cent in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Conversion of laparoscopic to open procedures was not associated with increased adverse outcomes. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy provides patients with many advantages, but when clinical circumstances are necessary, OC continues to be performed with the same overall adverse outcome rates, and the conversion process is not associated with poorer results in this high-risk population of patients.