Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting.

PURPOSE: In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study. METHODS: We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs. RESULTS: RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. METHODS: Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2. RESULTS: In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit-RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: - 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.

Early Allograft Dysfunction Increases Hospital Associated Costs After Liver Transplantation-A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Concepts to ameliorate the continued mismatch between demand for liver allografts and supply include the acceptance of allografts that meet extended donor criteria (ECD). ECD grafts are generally associated with an increased rate of complications such as early allograft dysfunction (EAD). The costs of liver transplantation for the health care system with respect to specific risk factors remain unclear and are subject to change. We analyzed 317 liver transplant recipients from 2013 to 2018 for outcome after liver transplantation and hospital costs in a German transplant center. In our study period, 1-year survival after transplantation was 80.1% (95% confidence interval: 75.8%-84.6%) and median hospital stay was 33 days (interquartile rage: 24), with mean hospital costs of €115,924 (SD €113,347). There was a positive correlation between costs and laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (rs = 0.48, P < 0.001), and the development of EAD increased hospital costs by €26,229. ECD grafts were not associated with a higher risk of EAD in our cohort. When adjusting for recipient-associated risk factors such as laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, recipient age, and split liver transplantation with propensity score matching, only EAD and cold ischemia increased total costs. Conclusion: Our data show that EAD leads to significantly higher hospital costs for liver transplantation, which are primarily attributed to recipient health status. Strategies to reduce the incidence of EAD are needed to control costs in liver transplantation.