Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution. METHODS: Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs. RESULTS: 298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

Postoperative Global Period Cost Reduction Using 3 Successive Risk-Stratified Pancreatectomy Clinical Pathways.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that iterative revisions of our original 2016 risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways would be associated with decreased 90-day perioperative costs. STUDY DESIGN: From a single-institution retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with 3 iterations: "version 1" (V1) (October 2016 to January 2019), V2 (February 2019 to October 2020), and V3 (November 2020 to February 2022), institutional data were aggregated using revenue codes and adjusted to constant 2022-dollar value. Grand total perioperative costs (primary endpoint) were the sum of pancreatectomy, inpatient care, readmission, and 90-day global outpatient care. Proprietary hospital-based costs were converted to ratios using the mean cost of all hospital operations as the denominator. RESULTS: Of 814 patients, pathway V1 included 363, V2 229, and V3 222 patients. Accordion Grade 3+ complications decreased with each iteration (V1: 28.4%, V2: 22.7%, and V3: 15.3%). Median length of stay decreased (V1: 6 days, interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 8; V2: 5 [IQR 4 to 6]; and V3: 5 [IQR 4 to 6]) without an increase in readmissions. Ninety-day global perioperative costs decreased by 32% (V1 cost ratio 12.6, V2 10.9, and V3 8.6). Reduction of the index hospitalization cost was associated with the greatest savings (-31%: 9.4, 8.3, and 6.5). Outpatient care costs decreased consistently (1.58, 1.41, and 1.04). When combining readmission and all outpatient costs, total "postdischarge" costs decreased (3.17, 2.59, and 2.13). Component costs of the index hospitalization that were associated with the greatest savings were room or board costs (-55%: 1.74, 1.14, and 0.79) and pharmacy costs (-61%: 2.20, 1.61, and 0.87; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Three iterative risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathway refinements were associated with a 32% global period cost savings, driven by reduced index hospitalization costs. This successful learning health system model could be externally validated at other institutions performing abdominal cancer surgery.

Trends and disparities in access to minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (midp): an eight-year analysis from the national cancer database.

Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to distal pancreatectomy are becoming the standard of care. The aim of our study was to evaluate the trends of utilization and disparities in access to minimally invasive approaches in distal pancreatectomy. We queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and analyzed all the patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010 to 2017. Patients were divided into groups of those with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and those with laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy (MIDP = minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy). Our outcome measures were trends of MIDP and disparities in access to MIDP. Cochran Armitage trend analysis and multivariate regression analysis were used to evaluate outcomes. A total of 13,537 patients with distal pancreatectomy were identified in the NCDB from 2010 to 2017. 7548 (55.8%) underwent ODP, while 5989 (44.2%) underwent MIDP. The MIDP rates increased from 25% in 2010 to 52% in 2017 (p < 0.01). On regression analysis, when controlled for age, gender, diagnosis, tumor size, grade, staging, and chemoradiotherapy, African American patients were 30% less likely to undergo MIDP than White (OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.5-0.8], p < 0.01). Similarly, Hispanic patients were 25% less likely to undergo MIDP than non-Hispanic patients OR 0.75, 95% CI [0.6-0.9], p = 0.02). Compared to Medicare/private insured patients, uninsured patients were 50% less likely to undergo MIDP (OR 0.5, 95% CI [0.4-0.7], p < 0.01). Based on the medium household income, compared to patients in the fourth quartile, patients in the third quartile OR 0.9, 95% CI [0.3-0.9], p = 0.03). Second OR 0.8, 95%CI [0.5-0.9], p < 0.01), first quartile OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.5-0.8], p < 0.01) were less likely to undergo MIPD as well. Utilization of MIDP has increased from one in every four patients in 2010 to every other patient in 2017. However, African Americans, Hispanics, the uninsured, and those from low-income quartiles are less likely to undergo MIDP. Efforts should be made to ensure access to minimally invasive approches are available to minorities.

The Implications of Readmission on Cost and Patient Outcomes Following Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic platform usage for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy has grown exponentially in recent years. This study aims to identify the impact of readmission following robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy and to analyze the financial implications of these readmissions. METHODS: We prospectively followed 137 patients after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Readmission was defined as rehospitalization within 30 days post-discharge. Total cost incorporated initial and readmission hospital costs, when applicable. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square/Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Of 137 patients, 20 (14%) were readmitted. Readmitted patients were 67 (66 ± 10.3) years old and had a BMI of 30 (30 ± 7.0) kg/m2; 9 (45%) had previous abdominal operations. Non-readmitted patients were 67 (62 ± 14.7) years old and had a BMI of 28 (28 ± 5.7) kg/m2; 37 (32%) had previous abdominal operations (P = NS, for all). Readmitted patients vs non-readmitted patients had operative durations of 327 (363 ± 179.1) vs 251 (293 ± 176.4) minutes (P = .10), estimated blood loss (EBL) of 90 (159 ± 214.6) vs 100 (244 ± 559.4) mL (P = .50), and tumor diameter of 3 (4 ± 2.0) vs 3 (4 ± 2.9) cm (P = 1.00). Initial length of stay (LOS) for readmitted patients vs patients who were not readmitted was 5 (5 ± 2.7) vs 4 (5 ± 3.0) days (P = 1.00); total hospital cost of those readmitted, including both admissions, was $29,095 (32,324 ± 20,227.38) vs $24,663 (25,075 ± 10,786.45) (P = .018) for those not readmitted. DISCUSSION: Despite a similar perioperative course, readmissions were associated with increased costs. We propose thorough consideration before readmission and increased patient education initiatives will reduce readmissions after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Cost-effectiveness of open pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without Heidelberg TRIANGLE operation for pancreatic cancer in China.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic cancer is a digestive malignancy with dismal prognosis. The advent of Heidelberg TRIANGLE dissection technique brings a turning point to improve the chance of survival. Our study aimed to evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) versus OPD combined with TRIANGLE operation (OPD-TRIANGLE) for patients with pancreatic cancer from the perspective of healthcare system in China. METHODS: Two hundred forty-six patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent OPD or OPD-TRIANGLE from January to September 2022 were enrolled in this study. We performed a decision tree model to assess clinical and economic implications of different surgical strategies. Estimation of health utilities was based on published literature, while costs were acquired from the hospitals, clinical expert consultations, and other local charge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was regarded as the primary outcome. Uncertainty of the findings was addressed via sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses. RESULTS: The results indicated that OPD-TRIANGLE group yielded additional 0.0402 QALYs at an incremental cost of US$1501.83 compared with OPD group, and the corresponding ICER was US$37,358.96 per QALY. The probabilities of OPD-TRIANGLE as the prior option were 52.8% at the WTP threshold of 60,000 US$/QALY. The main factors lined with costs incorporating total medical costs and operation-related costs. With 5-20% price reduction of OPD-TRIANGLE, the outcomes were also economically attractive. CONCLUSION: The findings of this population-based study suggested that OPD-TRIANGLE was likely to be cost-effective for patients with pancreatic cancer when compared against OPD. Further in-depth studies should be conducted to provide more comprehensive evidence.

Variations in Travel Patterns Affect Regionalization of Complex Cancer Surgery in California.

INTRODUCTION: Regionalization of complex surgical procedures may improve healthcare quality. We sought to define the impact of regionalization on access to high-volume hospitals for complex oncologic procedures in the state of California. METHODS: The California Department of Health Care Access and Information Database (2012-2016) identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR). Geospatial analysis was conducted to determine travel patterns. Clustered multivariable regression was performed to assess the probability of receiving care at a high-volume center. RESULTS: Among 25,070 patients (ES: n = 1216, 4.9%; PN: n = 13,247, 52.8%; PD: n = 3559, 14.2%; PR: n = 7048, 28.1%), 6575 (26.2%) individuals resided within 30 min, 11,046 (44.1%) resided within 30-60 min, 7125 (28.4%) resided within 60-90 min, and 324 (1.3%) resided beyond a 90-min travel window from a high-volume center. Median travel distance was 13.4 miles (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0-28.7). On multivariable regression, patients residing further away were more likely to bypass a low-volume center to undergo care at a high-volume hospital (odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.55) versus individuals residing closer to high-volume centers. Approximately one-third (29.7%) of patients lived beyond a 1-h travel window to the nearest high-volume hospital, of whom 5% traveled over 90 min. While hospital mortality rates across different travel time windows did not differ, surgery at a high-volume center was associated with an overall 1.2% decrease in in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of complex cancer surgery may be associated with a significant travel burden for a large subset of patients with complex cancer.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections.

BACKGROUND: The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHOD: The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Impact of Community Privilege on Access to Care Among Patients Following Complex Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to define the impact of community privilege on variations in travel patterns and access to care at high-volume hospitals for complex surgical procedures. BACKGROUND: With increased emphasis on centralization of high-risk surgery, social determinants of health play a critical role in preventing equitable access to care. Privilege is a right, benefit, advantage, or opportunity that positively impacts all social determinants of health. METHODS: The California Office of State-wide Health Planning Database identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR) for a malignant diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 and was merged using ZIP codes with the Index of Concentration of Extremes, a validated metric of both spatial polarization and privilege obtained from the American Community Survey. Clustered multivariable regression was performed to assess the probability of undergoing care at a high-volume center, bypassing the nearest and high-volume center, and total real driving time and travel distance. RESULTS: Among 25,070 patients who underwent a complex oncologic operation (ES: n=1216, 4.9%; PN: n=13,247, 52.8%; PD: n=3559, 14.2%; PR: n=7048, 28.1%), 5019 (20.0%) individuals resided in areas with the highest privilege (i.e., White, high-income homogeneity), whereas 4994 (19.9%) individuals resided in areas of the lowest privilege (i.e., Black, low-income homogeneity). Median travel distance was 33.1 miles (interquartile range 14.4-72.2). Roughly, three-quarters of patients (overall: 74.8%, ES: 35.0%; PN: 74.3%; PD: 75.2%; PR: 82.2%) sought surgical care at a high-volume center. On multivariable regression, patients residing in the least advantaged communities were less likely to undergo surgery at a high-volume hospital (overall: odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.81). Of note, individuals in the least privileged areas had longer travel distances (28.5 miles, 95% CI 21.2-35.8) to reach the destination facility, as well as over 70% greater odds of bypassing a high-volume hospital to undergo surgical care at a low-volume center (odds ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.29-2.34) versus individuals living in the highest privileged areas. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Privilege had a marked effect on access to complex oncologic surgical care at high-volume centers. These data highlight the need to focus on privilege as a key social determinant of health that influences patient access to and utilization of health care resources.

Costs of complications following distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic strategies, it is of relevance to determine the costs of these complications. An overview of the literature on the costs of complications following DP is lacking. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception until 1 August 2022). The primary outcome was the costs (i.e. cost differential) of major morbidity, individual complications and prolonged hospital stay. Quality of non-RCTs were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Costs were compared with the use of Purchasing Power parity. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021223019). RESULTS: Overall, seven studies were included with 854 patients after DP. The rate POPF grade B/C varied between 13% and 27% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 18,389 (based on two studies). The rate of severe morbidity varied between 13% and 38% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 19,281 (based on five studies). CONCLUSION: This systematic review reported considerable costs for POPF grade B/C and severe morbidity after DP. Prospective databases and studies should report on all complications in a uniform matter to better display the economic burden of complications of DP.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is more cost-effective than open resection: results from a Swedish randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is being implemented worldwide. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care perspective. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the randomized controlled trial LAPOP, where 60 patients were randomized to open or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. For the follow-up of two years, resource use from a health care perspective was recorded, and health-related quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L. The per-patient mean cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using nonparametric bootstrapping. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included in the analysis. The mean health care costs were lower, €3863 (95% CI: -€8020 to €385), for the laparoscopic group. Postoperative quality of life improved with laparoscopic resection and resulted in a gain in QALYs of 0.08 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.25). The laparoscopic group had lower costs and improved QALYs in 79% of bootstrap samples. With a cost-per-QALY threshold of €50 000, 95.4% of the bootstrap samples were in favour of laparoscopic resection. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with numerically lower health care costs and improvements in QALYs compared with the open approach. The results support the ongoing transition from open to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies.

Hepatopancreatic Surgeons Versus Pancreatic Surgeons: Does Surgical Subspecialization Impact Patient Care and Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Hepatopancreatic (HP) surgeon and hospital procedural volume may vary relative to liver or pancreas cases. We sought to investigate the impact of surgeon and hospital pancreatic subspecialization on patient outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreatic surgery between 2013-2017 were identified from the Medicare Standard Analytic Files. The surgery subspecialization index (SSI) was calculated to signify surgeon and hospital pancreatic subspecialization, and categorized as low, intermediate, and high SSI. The association of SSI with Textbook Outcome (TO) and its components, failure to rescue (FTR), discharge to home and index admission expenditures was assessed with mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 19,625 patients, most pancreatic procedures were characterized by high SSI (Low SSI: 27.7%, Intermediate SSI: 34.7%, High SSI: 37.7%). Notably, higher SSI was associated with greater odds of achieving a TO [Intermediate SSI: OR 1.16 (95%CI 1.06-1.27); High SSI: OR 1.23 (95%CI 1.11-1.35)] as well as being discharged home, and  lower odds of experiencing FTR. Furthermore, this association persisted in both low-volume [referent: Low SSI; Intermediate SSI: OR 1.14 (95%CI 1.01-1.28); High SSI: OR 1.15 (95%CI 1.02-1.31)] and high-volume hospitals [referent: Low SSI; Intermediate SSI: OR 1.16 (95%CI 1.01-1.32); High SSI: OR 1.26 (95%CI 1.09-1.45)]. CONCLUSIONS: Greater pancreatic subspecialization was associated with improved postoperative outcomes following pancreatic resection. Amidst increasing efforts to improve quality of care, surgical subspecialization may play a role in determining patient outcomes regardless of total surgeon or hospital volume.

A Comparison of Clinical and Cost Outcomes After Pancreatectomies at a Safety-net Hospital using a National Registry.

BACKGROUND: Our institution (UFHJ) meets the criteria of both a large, specialized medical center (LSCMC) and a safety-net hospital (AEH). Our aim is to compare pancreatectomy outcomes at UFHJ against other LSCMCs, AEHs, and against institutions that meet criteria for both LSCMC and AEH. In addition, we sought to evaluate differences between LSCMCs and AEHs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pancreatectomies for pancreatic cancer were queried from the Vizient Clinical Data Base (2018 to 2020). Clinical and cost outcomes were compared between UFHJ and LSCMCs, AEHs, and a combined group, respectively. Indices >1 indicated the observed value was greater than the expected national benchmark value. RESULTS: The mean number of pancreatectomy cases performed per institution in the LSCMC group was 12.15, 11.73, and 14.31 in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. At AEHs, 25.33, 24.56, and 26.37 mean cases per institution per year, respectively. In the combined group of both LSCMCs and AEHs, 8.10, 7.60, and 7.22 mean cases, respectively. At UFHJ, 17, 34, and 39 cases were performed each year, respectively. Length of stay index decreased below national benchmarks at UFHJ (1.08 to 0.82), LSCMCs (0.91 to 0.85), and AEHs (0.94 to 0.93), with an increasing case mix index at UFHJ (3.33 to 4.20) from 2018 to 2020. In contrast, length of stay index increased in the combined group (1.14 to 1.18) and overall was the lowest at LSCMCs (0.89). Mortality index declined at UFHJ (5.07 to 0.00) below national benchmarks compared with LSCMCs (1.23 to 1.29), AEHs (1.19 to 1.45), and the combined group (1.92 to 1.99), and was significantly different between all groups ( P <0.001). Thirty-day re-admissions were lower at UFHJ (6.25% to 10.26%) compared with LSCMCs (17.62% to 16.83%) and AEHs (18.93% to 15.51%), and significantly lower at AEHs compared with LSCMCs ( P <0.001). Notably, 30-day re-admissions were lower at AEHs compared with LSCMCs ( P <0.001) and declined over time and were the lowest in the combined group in 2020 (17.72% to 9.52%). Direct cost index at UFHJ declined (1.00 to 0.67) below the benchmark compared with LSCMCs (0.90 to 0.93), AEHs (1.02 to 1.04), and the combined group (1.02 to 1.10). When comparing LSCMCs and AEHs, there were no significant differences between direct cost percentages ( P =0.56); however, the direct cost index was significantly lower at LSCMCs. CONCLUSION: Pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution have improved over time exceeding national benchmarks and often were significant to LSCMCs, AEHs, and a combined comparator group. In addition, AEHs were able to maintain good quality care when compared with LSCMCs. This study highlights the role that safety-net hospitals can provide high-quality care to a medically vulnerable patient population in the presence of high-case volume.

Does CPT Modifier 22 Appropriately Reflect a Difficult Pancreaticoduodenectomy? Retrospective Analysis of Operative Outcomes and Cost.

BACKGROUND: CPT coding allows addition of a 2-digit modifier code to denote particularly difficult procedures necessitating additional reimbursement, called the modifier 22. The use of modifier 22 in relation to pancreatic surgery and outcomes, specifically pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), has not been explored. STUDY DESIGN: All PDs performed from 2010 to 2019 at a quaternary healthcare system were analyzed for differences in preoperative characteristics, outcomes, and cost based on the use of modifier 22. Adjusted logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors predictive of modifier 22 use. RESULTS: A total of 1,284 patients underwent PD between 2010 and 2019; 1,173 with complete data were included, of which 320 (27.3%) were coded with modifier 22. Patients coded with modifier 22 demonstrated a significantly longer duration of surgery (365.9 ± 168.4 vs 227 ± 97.1; p < 0.001). They also incurred significantly higher cost of index admission ($37,446 ± 34,187 vs $28,279 ± 27,980; p = 0.002). An adjusted multivariable analysis (specifically adjusted for surgeon variation) revealed duration of surgery (p < 0.001), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.039), class II obesity (p = 0.019), and chronic pancreatitis (p = 0.005) to be predictive of modifier 22 use. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the subjective nature of this CPT modifier, modifier 22 is an appropriate marker of intraoperative difficulty. Preoperative and intraoperative characteristics that lead to its addition may be used to further delineate difficult PDs.

Costs and clinical benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: ERAS is a holistic and multidisciplinary pathway that incorporates various evidence-based interventions to accelerate recovery and improve clinical outcomes. However, evidence on cost benefit of ERAS in pancreaticoduodenectomy remains scarce. This review aimed to investigate cost benefit, compliance, and clinical benefits of ERAS in pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane library to identify studies conducted between 2000 and 2021, comparing effect of ERAS programmes and traditional care on hospital cost, length of stay (LOS), complications, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), readmission, reoperation, mortality, and compliance. RESULTS: The search yielded 3 RCTs and 28 cohort studies. Hospital costs were significantly reduced in the ERAS group (SMD = - 1.41; CL, - 2.05 to - 0.77; P < 0.00001). LOS was shortened by 3.15 days (MD = - 3.15; CI, - 3.94 to - 2.36; P < 0.00001) in the ERAS group. Fewer patients in the ERAS group had complications (RR = 0.83; CI, 0.76-0.91; P < 0.0001). Incidences of DGE significantly decreased in the ERAS group (RR = 0.72; CI, 0.55-0.94; P = 0.01). The number of deaths was fewer in the ERAS group (RR = 0.76; CI, 0.58-1.00; P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated that ERAS is safe and feasible in pancreaticoduodenectomy, improves clinical outcome such as LOS, complications, DGE and mortality rates, without changing readmissions and reoperations, while delivering significant cost savings. Higher compliance is associated with better clinical outcomes, especially LOS and complications.

Race, Insurance, and Sex-Based Disparities in Access to High-Volume Centers for Pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: With a large body of literature demonstrating positive volume-outcome relationships for most major operations, minimum volume requirements have been suggested for concentration of cases to high-volume centers (HVCs). However, data are limited regarding disparities in access to these hospitals for pancreatectomy patients. METHODS: The 2005-2018 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for all elective adult hospitalizations for pancreatectomy. Hospitals performing more than 20 annual cases were classified as HVCs. Mixed-multivariable regression models were developed to characterize the impact of demographic factors and case volume on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of an estimated 127,527 hospitalizations, 79.8% occurred at HVCs. Patients at these centers were more frequently white (79.0 vs 70.8%; p < 0.001), privately insured (39.4 vs 34.2%; p < 0.001), and within the highest income quartile (30.5 vs 25.0%; p < 0.001). Adjusted analysis showed that operations performed at HVCs were associated with reduced odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.55), increased odds of discharge to home (AOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30), shorter hospital stay (ß, -0.81 days; 95% CI, -1.2 to -0.40 days), but similar costs. Patients who were female (AOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98), non-white (black: AOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75; Hispanic: AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47-0.66; reference, white), insured by Medicaid (AOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.56-0.72; reference, private), and within the lowest income quartile (AOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90; reference, highest) had decreased odds of treatment at an HVC. CONCLUSIONS: For those undergoing pancreatectomies, HVCs realize superior clinical outcomes but treat lower proportions of female, non-white, and Medicaid populations. These findings may have implications for improving access to high-quality centers.

Accurate intraoperative real-time blood flow assessment of the remnant stomach during robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and da Vinci Firefly technology.

INTRODUCTION: Ischemic gastropathy is one of the unique postoperative complications associated with distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate blood flow to the stomach following a resection; however, no intraoperative procedures have been established to assess this issue. Herein we describe two cases in which intraoperative evaluation of real-time blood flow in the residual stomach was performed using indocyanine green fluorescence and da Vinci Firefly technology during a robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection. METHODS: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection was performed using a da Vinci Xi surgical system on two patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer and suspected invasion of the celiac artery. Indocyanine green (ICG) (0.5 mg/kg) was injected intravenously after resection to evaluate real-time blood flow of the stomach using the da Vinci Firefly system. Blood flow of the stomach was evaluated 60 seconds after the intravenous injection of ICG. RESULTS: All cases were confirmed that there was sufficient blood flow in the residual stomach. Therefore, reconstruction of the left gastric artery was not performed, and the surgery was completed with preservation of the stomach. Good postoperative outcomes were achieved and there was no evidence of ischemic gastropathy or delayed gastric emptying in both cases. CONCLUSION: This method is very useful in determining whether or not to perform reconstruction of the left gastric artery and/or additional resection of the remnant stomach during a robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection.

Achieving an optimal textbook outcome following pancreatic resection: The impact of surgeon specific experience in achieving high quality outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The interplay of patient-, procedural, and provider-level factors on the ability to achieve a textbook outcome(TO) remain poorly defined. METHODS: The Medicare Standard Analytical Files from 2013 to 2017 were used to identify beneficiaries who underwent pancreatic surgery. Multivariable logistic regression with mixed effects was used to examine the role of the individual surgeon relative to patient- and procedural-factors to achieve a TO. RESULTS: Among 20,902 patients who underwent pancreatic resection, median age was 72 years (IQR:68-77); roughly one-half of the cohort was female(47,4%) and the majority was White (89.3%). After controlling for patient- and procedure-related characteristics, there was 35% variation in odds of experiencing a TO relative to the specific individual surgeon who performed the operation (OR:1.35, 95%CI:1.29-1.41). Patients who underwent pancreatectomy by a bottom TO quartile surgeon had a higher observed/expected ratio for each component of TO including post-operative complication (OR:2.62, 95%CI:2.11-3.25), prolonged LOS (OR:3.36, 95%CI:2.67-4.22), 90-day readmission (OR:2.08, 95%CI:1.68-2.56), and 90-day mortality (OR:3.29, 95% CI:2.35-4.63) compared with patients treated by a high TO quartile surgeon. CONCLUSION: The likelihood of achieving a TO after pancreatic resection was markedly influenced by the individual treating surgeon even after controlling for patient- and procedure-level factors.

High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica).

BACKGROUND: The present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices. METHODS: A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from - 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures' savings. RESULTS: The literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to - 5.25/-9.02% of operating room time and to - 5.03/-30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals' perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers' quality-of-life emerged. CONCLUSIONS: The results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.