Robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy in sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease-a comparison of operative trauma and cost-effectiveness: retrospective, single-center analysis.

PURPOSE: Robotic assisted surgery is an alternative, fast evolving technique for performing colorectal surgery. The primary aim of this single center analysis is to compare elective laparoscopic and robotic sigmoid colectomies for diverticular disease on the extent of operative trauma and the costs. METHODS: Retrospective analysis from our prospective clinical database to identify all consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent elective minimally invasive left sided colectomy for diverticular disease from January 2016 until December 2020 at our tertiary referral institution. RESULTS: In total, 83 patients (31 female and 52 male) with sigmoid diverticulitis underwent elective minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy, of which 42 underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) and 41 robotic assisted surgery (RS). The mean C-reactive protein difference between the preoperative and postoperative value was significantly lower in the robotic assisted group (4,03 mg/dL) than in the laparoscopic group (7.32 mg/dL) (p = 0.030). Similarly, the robotic´s hemoglobin difference was significantly lower (p = 0.039). The first postoperative bowel movement in the LS group occurred after a mean of 2.19 days, later than after a mean of 1.63 days in the RS group (p = 0.011). An overview of overall charge revealed significantly lower total costs per operation and postoperative hospital stay for the robotic approach, 6058 € vs. 6142 € (p = 0,014) not including the acquisition and maintenance costs for both systems. CONCLUSION: Robotic colon resection for diverticular disease is cost-effective and delivers reduced intraoperative trauma with significantly lower postoperative C-reactive protein and hemoglobin drift compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Cost analysis of new robotic competitors: a comparison of direct costs for initial hospital stay between Da Vinci and Hugo RAS for radical prostatectomy.

Robotic surgery with Da Vinci has revolutionized the treatment of several diseases, including prostate cancer; nevertheless, costs remain the major drawback. Recently, new robotic platforms entered the market aiming to reduce costs and improve the access to robotic surgery. The aim of the study is to compare direct cost for initial hospital stay of radical prostatectomy performed with two different robotic systems, the Da Vinci and the new Hugo RAS system. This is a projection study that applies cost of robotic surgery, derived from a local tender, to the clinical course of robotic radical prostatectomy (RALP) performed with Da Vinci and Hugo RAS. The study was performed in a public referral center for robotic surgery equipped with both systems. The cost of robotic surgery from a local tender were considered and included rent, annual maintenance, and a per-procedure fee covering the setup of four robotic instruments. Those costs were applied to patients who underwent RALP with both systems since November 2022. The primary endpoint is to evaluate direct costs of initial hospital stay for Da Vinci and Hugo RAS, by considering equipment costs (as derived from the tender), and costs of theater and of hospitalization. The direct per-procedure cost is €2,246.31 for a Da Vinci procedure and €1995 for a Hugo RALP. In the local setting, Hugo RAS provides 11% of cost saving for RALP. By applying this per-procedure cost to our clinical data, the expenditure for the entire index hospitalization is € 6.7755,1 for Da Vinci and € 6.637,15 for Hugo RALP. The new Hugo RAS system is willing to reduce direct expenditures of robotic surgery for RALP; furthermore, it provides similar peri-operative outcomes compared to the Da Vinci. However, other drivers of costs should be taken into account, such as the duration of OR use-that is more than just console time and may depend on the facility's background and organization. Further variations in direct costs of robotic systems are related to caseload, local agreements and negotiations. Thus, cost comparison of new robotic platform still remains an ongoing issue.

Robotic surgery versus Laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery: a short-term outcomes and cost systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare the operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost associated with Robotic Surgery (RS) and Laparascopic Surgery (LS) in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus databases. Studies comparing short-term outcomes and cost between RS and LS in patients with anti-reflux and hiatal hernia were included. Data on operative time, complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost were extracted. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the MINORS scale. RESULTS: Fourteen retrospective observational studies involving a total of 555,368 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no statistically significant difference in operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, and mortality between RS and LS. However, LS was associated with lower costs compared to RS. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that RS has non-inferior short-term outcomes in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery, compared to LS. LS is more cost-effective, but RS offers potential benefits such as improved visualization and enhanced surgical techniques. Further research, including randomized controlled trials and long-term outcome studies, is needed to validate and refine these findings.

Lung volume reduction surgery: a micro-costing analysis from a national tertiary referral centre.

OBJECTIVES: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a clinically effective palliation procedure for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. LVRS has recently been commissioned by the NHS England. In this study, a costing model was developed to analyse cost and resource implications of different LVRS procedures. METHODS: Three pathways were defined by their surgical procedures: bronchoscopic endobronchial valve insertion (EBV-LVRS), video-assisted thoracic surgery LVRS and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery LVRS. The costing model considered use of hospital resources from the LVRS decision until 90 days after hospital admission. The model was calibrated with data obtained from an observational study, electronic health records and expert opinion. Unit costs were obtained from the hospital finance department and reported in 2021 Euros. RESULTS: Video-assisted thoracic surgery LVRS was associated with the lowest cost at €12 896 per patient. This compares to the costs of EBV-LVRS at €15 598 per patient and €13 305 per patient for robotic-assisted thoracic surgery LVRS. A large component of EBV-LVRS costs were accrued secondary to complications, including revision EBV-LVRS. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a comprehensive model framework for the analysis of hospital-related resource use and costs for the 3 surgical modalities. In the future, service commissioning agencies, hospital management and clinicians can use this framework to determine their modifiable resource use (composition of surgical teams, use of staff and consumables, planned length of stay and revision rates for EBV-LVRS) and to assess the potential cost implications of changes in these parameters.

Is implementation of robotic-assisted procedures in acute care general surgery cost-effective?

Over the past 2 decades, the use and importance of robotic surgery in minimally invasive surgery has increased. Across various surgical specialties, robotic technology has gained popularity through its use of 3D visualization, optimal ergonomic positioning, and precise instrument manipulation. This growing interest has also been seen in acute care surgery, where laparoscopic procedures are used more frequently. Despite the growing popularity of robotic surgery in the acute care surgical realm, there is very little research on the utility of robotics regarding its effects on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The current literature indicates some value in utilizing robotic technology in specific urgent procedures, such as cholecystectomies and incarcerated hernia repairs; however, the high cost of robotic surgery was found to be a potential barrier to its widespread use in acute care surgery. This narrative literature review aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in surgical procedures that are often done in urgent settings: cholecystectomies, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, and appendectomies.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection for the treatment of stage II and III sigmoid colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection is a novel technique. However, evidence in the literature regarding the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) is insufficient. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLS versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of sigmoid colon cancer. We performed a retrospective study at the Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital. Patients diagnosed with sigmoid colon cancer and underwent anterior resection between January 2019 to September 2023 were included in the study. We compared the basic characteristics of the patients and the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients in the two groups. A total of 452 patients were included. Based on propensity score matching, 212 patients (RLS, n = 106; CLS, n = 106) were included. The baseline data in RLS group was comparable to that in CLS group. Compared with CLS group, RLS group exhibited less estimated blood loss (P = 0.015), more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.005), longer operation time (P < 0.001) and higher total hospitalization costs (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in other perioperative or pathologic outcomes between the two groups. For 3-year prognosis, overall survival rates were 92.5% in the RLS group and 90.6% in the CLS group (HR 0.700, 95% CI 0.276-1.774, P = 0.452); disease-free survival rates were 91.5% in the RLS group and 87.7% in the CLS group (HR 0.613, 95% CI 0.262-1.435, P = 0.259). Compared with CLS, RLS for sigmoid colon cancer was found to be associated with a higher number of lymph nodes harvested, similar perioperative outcomes and long-term survival outcomes. High total hospitalization costs of RLS did not translate into better long-term oncology outcomes.

Hospital costs of robotic-assisted and open treatment of large ventral hernias.

Robotic-assisted treatment of ventral hernia offers many advantages, however, studies reported higher costs for robotic surgery compared to other surgical techniques. We aimed at comparing hospital costs in patients undergoing large ventral hernia repair with either robotic or open surgery. We searched from a prospectively maintained database patients who underwent robotic or open surgery for the treatment of the large ventral hernias from January 2016 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was to assess costs in both groups. For eligible patients, data was extracted and analyzed using a propensity score-matching. Sixty-seven patients were retrieved from our database. Thirty-four underwent robotic-assisted surgery and 33 open surgery. Mean age was 66.4 ± 4.1 years, 50% of patients were male. After a propensity score-matching, a similar total cost of EUR 18,297 ± 8,435 vs. 18,024 ± 7514 (p = 0.913) in robotic-assisted and open surgery groups was noted. Direct and indirect costs were similar in both groups. Robotic surgery showed higher operatory theatre-related costs (EUR 7532 ± 2,091 vs. 3351 ± 1872, p < 0.001), which were compensated by shorter hospital stay-related costs (EUR 4265 ± 4366 vs. 7373 ± 4698, p = 0.032). In the treatment of large ventral hernia, robotic surgery had higher operatory theatre-related costs, however, they were fully compensated by shorter hospital stays and resulting in similar total costs.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Video-Assisted vs Robotic-Assisted Lung Lobectomies for Operating Room Resource Utilization and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: With increased use of robots, there is an inadequate understanding of minimally invasive modalities' time costs. This study evaluates the operative durations of robotic-assisted vs video-assisted lung lobectomies. Objective: To compare resource utilization, specifically operative time, between video-assisted and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic lung lobectomies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients aged 18 to 90 years who underwent minimally invasive (robotic-assisted or video-assisted) lung lobectomy from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, with 90 days' follow-up after surgery. The study included multicenter electronic health record data from 21 hospitals within an integrated health care system in Northern California. Thoracic surgery was regionalized to 4 centers with 14 board-certified general thoracic surgeons. Exposures: Robotic-assisted or video-assisted lung lobectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was operative duration (cut to close) in minutes. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 90-day mortality. Comparisons between video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomies were generated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables. The average treatment effects were estimated with augmented inverse probability treatment weighting (AIPTW). Patient and surgeon covariates were adjusted for and included patient demographics, comorbidities, and case complexity (age, sex, race and ethnicity, neighborhood deprivation index, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, nonelective hospitalizations, emergency department visits, a validated laboratory derangement score, a validated institutional comorbidity score, a surgeon-designated complexity indicator, and a procedural code count), and a primary surgeon-specific indicator. Results: The study included 1088 patients (median age, 70.1 years [IQR, 63.3-75.8 years]; 704 [64.7%] female), of whom 446 (41.0%) underwent robotic-assisted and 642 (59.0%) underwent video-assisted lobectomy. The median unadjusted operative duration was 172.0 minutes (IQR, 128.0-226.0 minutes). After AIPTW, there was less than a 10% difference in all covariates between groups, and operative duration was a median 20.6 minutes (95% CI, 12.9-28.2 minutes; P < .001) longer for robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lobectomies. There was no difference in adjusted secondary patient outcomes, specifically for length of stay (0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8 days; P = .11) or risk of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.84-1.98; P = .13). The unadjusted 90-day mortality rate (1.3% [n = 14]) was too low for the AIPTW modeling process. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, there was no difference in patient outcomes between modalities, but operative duration was longer in robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lung lobectomy. Given that this elevated operative duration is additive when applied systematically, increased consideration of appropriate patient selection for robotic-assisted lung lobectomy is needed to improve resource utilization.

The impact of robotic rectal cancer surgery at a Canadian regional cancer centre: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic surgery has several advantages over other minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for rectal cancer surgery, the uptake in Canada has been limited owing to a perceived increase in cost and lack of training. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of access to robotic surgery in a Canadian setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive adults undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer between 2017 and 2020. The primary exposure was access to robotic surgery. Outcomes included MIS utilization, short-term outcomes, total cost of care, and quality of surgical resection. We completed univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We included 171 individuals in this cohort study (85 in the prerobotic period and 86 in the robotic period). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. A higher proportion of individuals underwent successful MIS in the robotic phase (86% v. 46%, p < 0.001). Other benefits included a shorter mean length of hospital stay (5.1 d v. 9.2 d, p < 0.001). The quality of surgical resection was similar between groups. The total cost of care was $16 746 in the robotic period and $18 808 in the prerobotic period (mean difference -$1262, 95% confidence interval -$4308 to $1783; p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Access to robotic rectal cancer surgery increased successful completion of MIS and shortened hospital stay, with a similar total cost of care. Robotic rectal cancer surgery can enhance patient outcomes in the Canadian setting.

Transforming surgical landscapes: obstacles in the integration of robotic surgery in Pakistan -is cost the only limiting factor?

The advantages of Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) over laparoscopic surgery encompass enhanced precision, improved ergonomics, shorter learning curves, versatility in complex procedures, and the potential for remote surgery. These benefits contribute to improved patient outcomes which have led to a paradigm shift in robotic surgery worldwide and it is now being hailed as the future of surgery. Robotic surgery was introduced in Pakistan in 2011, but widespread adoption has been limited. The future of RAS in Pakistan demands a strategic and comprehensive plan due to the substantial investment in installation and maintenance costs. Considering Pakistan's status as a low to middle-income country, a well-designed economic model compatible with the existing health system is imperative. The debate over high investments in robotic surgery amid unmet basic surgical needs underscores the complex dynamics of healthcare challenges in the country. In this review, we discuss the potential benefits of robotics over other surgical techniques, where robotic surgery stands in Pakistan and the possible hurdles and barriers limiting its use along with solutions to overcome this in the future.

Can Robotic Arm-assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Remain Cost-effective in Volume-based Procurement System in China? A Markov Model-based Study.

OBJECTIVE: The volume based procurement (VBP) program in China was initiated in 2022. The cost-effectiveness of robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is yet uncertain after the initiation of the program. The objective of the study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty and the influence of the VBP program to its cost-effectiveness in China. METHODS: The study was a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness study. Cases of primary total knee arthroplasty from January 2019 to December 2021 were included retrospectively. A Markov model was developed to simulate patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis. Manual and robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasties were compared for cost-effectiveness before and after the engagement of the VBP program in China. Probability and sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty showed better recovery and lower revision rates before and after initiation of the VBP program. Robotic arm-based TKA was superior to manual total knee arthroplasty, with an increased effectiveness of 0.26 (16.87 vs 16.61) before and 0.52 (16.96 vs 16.43) after the application of Volume-based procurement, respectively. The procedure is more cost-effective in the new procurement system (17.13 vs 16.89). Costs of manual or robotic arm-assisted TKA were the most sensitive parameters in our model. CONCLUSION: Based on previous and current medical charging systems in China, robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty is a more cost-effective procedure compared to traditional manual total knee arthroplasty. As the volume-based procurement VBP program shows, the procedure can be more cost-effective.

Evaluating the cost of robotic-assisted total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

As uptake of robotic-assisted arthroplasty increases there is a need for economic evaluation of the implementation and ongoing costs associated with robotic surgery. The aims of this study were to describe the in-hospital cost of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RA-UKA) and determine the influence of patient characteristics and surgical outcomes on cost. This prospective cohort study included adult patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing primary unilateral RA-TKA and RA-UKA, at a tertiary hospital in Sydney between April 2017 and June 2021. Patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, and in-hospital cost variables were extracted from hospital medical records. Differences between outcomes for RA-TKA and RA-UKA were compared using independent sample t-tests. Logistic regression was performed to determine drivers of cost. Of the 308 robotic-assisted procedures, 247 were RA-TKA and 61 were RA-UKA. Surgical time, time in the operating room, and length of stay were significantly shorter in RA-UKA (p < 0.001); whereas RA-TKA patients were older (p = 0.002) and more likely to be discharged to in-patient rehabilitation (p = 0.009). Total in-hospital cost was significantly higher for RA-TKA cases (AU$18580.02 vs $13275.38; p < 0.001). Robotic system and maintenance cost per case was AU$3867.00 for TKA and AU$5008.77 for UKA. Patients born overseas and lower volume robotic surgeons were significantly associated with higher total cost of RA-UKA. Increasing age and male gender were significantly associated with higher total cost of RA-TKA. Total cost was significantly higher for RA-TKA than RA-UKA. Robotic system costs for RA-UKA are inflated by the software cost relative to the volume of cases compared with RA-TKA. Cost is an important consideration when evaluating long term benefits of robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty in future studies to provide evidence for the economic sustainability of this practice.

Time-Driven Activity-based Costing and Outcomes of Same-Day Discharge vs Inpatient Robotic Partial and Radical Nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes, total healthcare utilization, and cost savings for same-day discharge (SDD) vs inpatient robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy (RARN). METHODS: We compared 146 RAPNs and 65 RARNs consecutively performed as SDD (RAPN=21, RARN=9) vs inpatient (RAPN=125, RARN=56) from April 2015 to May 2023 at two academic medical centers. We collected baseline demographics, perioperative characteristics, and 30-day complications. We applied the Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing analysis to compare total costs of RAPN and PARN throughout the cycle of care, including inpatient vs SDD. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar between patients undergoing inpatient vs SDD RAPN and RARN. One Clavien-Dindo grade II complication (3.3%) requiring readmission due to wound infection for antibiotics occurred after SDD RAPN; no complications occurred after SDD RARN. Two unscheduled office or emergency department visits (6.7%) occurred after SDD RAPN for surgical-site infection and urinary retention. SDD vs inpatient RAPN and RARN demonstrated a $3091 (18%) and $4003 (25%) overall cost reduction, respectively. CONCLUSION: SDD RAPN and RARN result in cost savings of 18%-25% without a difference in complications, and thereby improves value-based care for appropriately selected patients.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. RESULTS: Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Three-arm robotic cholecystectomy: a novel, cost-effective method of delivering and learning robotic surgery in upper GI surgery.

Cholecystectomy is one of the commonest performed surgeries worldwide. With the introduction of robotic surgery, the numbers of robot-assisted cholecystectomies has risen over the past decade. Despite the proven use of this procedure as a training operation for those surgeons adopting robotics, the consumable cost of routine robotic cholecystectomy can be difficult to justify in the absence of evidence favouring or disputing this approach. Here, we describe a novel method for performing a robot-assisted cholecystectomy using a "three-arm" technique on the newer, 4th generation, da Vinci system. Whilst maintaining the ability to perform precision dissection, this method reduces the consumable cost by 46%. The initial series of 109 procedures proves this procedure to be safe, feasible, trainable and time efficient.

From morbidity reduction to cost-effectiveness: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations in minimal invasive liver surgery.

PURPOSE: Minimal-invasive liver surgery (MILS) reduces surgical trauma and is associated with fewer postoperative complications. To amplify these benefits, perioperative multimodal concepts like Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS), can play a crucial role. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for MILS in an ERAS program, considering the necessary additional workforce and associated expenses. METHODS: A prospective observational study comparing surgical approach in patients within an ERAS program compared to standard care from 2018-2022 at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Cost data were provided by the medical controlling office. ERAS items were applied according to the ERAS society recommendations. RESULTS: 537 patients underwent liver surgery (46% laparoscopic, 26% robotic assisted, 28% open surgery) and 487 were managed by the ERAS protocol. Implementation of ERAS reduced overall postoperative complications in the MILS group (18% vs. 32%, p = 0.048). Complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade II incurred the highest costs (€ 31,093) compared to minor (€ 17,510) and no complications (€13,893; p < 0.001). In the event of major complications, profit margins were reduced by a median of € 6,640. CONCLUSIONS: Embracing the ERAS society recommendations in liver surgery leads to a significant reduction of complications. This outcome justifies the higher cost associated with a well-structured ERAS protocol, as it effectively offsets the expenses of complications.

Efforts to improve the billing accuracy of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery through education, updated procedure cards, and electronic medical record system changes.

Precise medical billing is essential for decreasing hospital liability, upholding environmental stewardship and ensuring fair costs for patients. We instituted a multifaceted approach to improve the billing accuracy of our robotic-assisted thoracic surgery programme by including an educational component, updating procedure cards and removing the auto-populating function of our electronic medical record. Overall, we saw significant improvements in both the number of inaccurate billing cases and, specifically, the number of cases that overcharged patients.

Clinical outcomes and costs of retromuscular and intraperitoneal onlay mesh techniques in robotic incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and financial cost of intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus retromuscular (RM) repairs in robotic incisional hernia repairs (rIHR). METHODS: Patients who underwent either IPOM or RM elective rIHR from 2012 to 2022 were included. Demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and hospital costs were directly compared. RESULTS: Sixty-nine IPOM and 55 RM were included. Age and body mass index (BMI) did not differ between both groups (IPOM vs RM: 59.3 ± 11.2 years vs. 57.5 ± 14 years, p = 0.423; BMI 34.1 ± 6.3 vs. BMI 33.2 ± 6.9, p = 0.435, respectively). Comorbidities and hernia characteristics were comparable. Extensive lysis of adhesions (> 30 min) was required more often in IPOM (18 vs. 6 in RM, p = 0.034). Defect closure was achieved in 100% of RM vs. 81.2% in IPOM (p < 0.001). Median (interquartile range) postoperative pain score was higher in RM than in IPOM [5(3-7) vs. 4(3-5), respectively, p = 0.006]. Median length of stay (0 day) and same-day discharge rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.598, p = 0.669, respectively). Six (8.7%) patients in the IPOM group versus one (1.8%) patient in the RM group were readmitted to hospital within 30 days postoperatively (p = 0.099). Perioperative complications were higher in IPOM (p = 0.011; 34.8% vs. 14.5% in RM) with higher Comprehensive Complication Index® morbidity scores [0(0-12.2) vs 0(0-0) in RM, p = 0.008)], Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications (8 vs 0 in RM, p = 0.009), and surgical site events (17 vs. 5 in RM, p = 0.024). Within a follow-up period of 57(± 28) months, recurrence rates were similar between both groups. Hospital costs did not differ between groups [IPOM: $9978 (7031-12,926) vs. RM: $8961(6701-11,222), p = 0.300]. Although postoperative complication costs were higher in IPOM ($2436 vs RM: $161, p = 0.020), total costs were comparable [IPOM: $12,415(8700-16,130) vs. RM: $9123(6789-11,457), p = 0.080]. CONCLUSION: Despite retromuscular repairs having lower postoperative complications than intraperitoneal onlay mesh repairs, both techniques offered encouraging results in robotic incisional hernia repair at a comparable total cost.