Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES.

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres. METHODS: This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP. RESULTS: During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.

PEComa pancreático ¿una neoplasia no tan infrecuente? Revisión sistemática y actualización clínico-terapéutica / Pancreatic PEComa, a not so uncommon neoplasm? Systematic review and therapeutic update

Los PEComas pancreáticos son neoplasias con potencial maligno extremadamente raras, que afectan mayoritariamente a mujeres de mediana edad y que se caracterizan por presentar marcadores melanocíticos y miogénicos en el análisis inmunohistoquímico. No existen síntomas ni pruebas de imagen patognomónicas. El diagnóstico se establece con el análisis de la pieza quirúrgica o de la PAAF obtenida con ecoendoscopia preoperatoria. El tratamiento más habitual consiste en la exéresis radical, adecuando la intervención a la localización del tumor. Hasta la fecha se han descrito 34 casos, no obstante, más del 80% de los mismos han sido reportados en la última década, lo que sugiere que es una patología más frecuente de lo esperado. Se reporta un nuevo caso de PEComa pancreático y se realiza una revisión sistemática de la literatura de acuerdo con las guías PRISMA con el objetivo de difundir su existencia, profundizar en su conocimiento y actualizar su manejo (AU)

Pancreatic PEComas are extremely rare neoplasms with malignant potential, which mostly affect middle-aged women and are characterized by presenting melanocytic and myogenic markers in immunohistochemical analysis. There are no symptoms or pathognomonic imaging tests, so the diagnosis is established with the analysis of the surgical specimen or the FNA obtained with preoperative endoscopic ultrasound. The mean treatment consists on radical excision, adapting the intervention to the location of the tumor. To date, 34 cases have been described; however, more than 80% of them have been reported in the last decade, which suggests that it is a more frequent pathology than expected. A new case of pancreatic PEComa is reported and a systematic review of the literature is carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines with the aim of divulge this pathology, deepening its knowledge and updating its management (AU)

Pancreatic PEComa, a not so uncommon neoplasm? Systematic review and therapeutic update. / PEComa pancreático ¿una neoplasia no tan infrecuente? Revisión sistemática y actualización clínico-terapéutica.

Pancreatic PEComas are extremely rare neoplasms with malignant potential, which mostly affect middle-aged women and are characterized by presenting melanocytic and myogenic markers in immunohistochemical analysis. There are no symptoms or pathognomonic imaging tests, so the diagnosis is established with the analysis of the surgical specimen or the FNA obtained with preoperative endoscopic ultrasound. The mean treatment consists on radical excision, adapting the intervention to the location of the tumor. To date, 34 cases have been described; however, more than 80% of them have been reported in the last decade, which suggests that it is a more frequent pathology than expected. A new case of pancreatic PEComa is reported and a systematic review of the literature is carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines with the aim of divulge this pathology, deepening its knowledge and updating its management.

Is ICG essential in all colorectal surgery? A 3-year experience in a single center: a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Indocyanine green (ICG) was introduced as a promising diagnostic tool to provide real-time assessment of intestinal vascularization. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether ICG could reduce the rate of postoperative AL. The objective of this study is to assess its usefulness and to determine in which patients is most useful and would benefit the most from the use of ICG for intraoperative assessment of colon perfusion. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single center, including all patients who underwent colorectal surgery with intestinal anastomosis between January 2017 and December 2020. The results of patients in whom ICG was used prior to bowel transection were compared with the results of the patients in whom this technique was not used. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to compare groups with and without ICG. RESULTS: A total of 785 patients who underwent colorectal surgery were included. The operations performed were right colectomies (35.0%), left colectomies (48.3%), and rectal resections (16.7%). ICG was used in 280 patients. The mean time since the infusion of ICG until detection of fluorescence in the colon wall was 26.9 ± 1.2 s. The section line was modified in 4 cases (1.4%) after ICG due to a lack of perfusion in the chosen section line. Globally, a non-statistically significant increase in anastomotic leak rate was observed in the group without ICG (9.3% vs. 7.5%; p = 0.38). The result of the PSM was a coefficient of 0.026 (CI - 0.014 to 0.065, p = 0.207). CONCLUSIONS: ICG is a safe and useful tool to assess the perfusion of the colon prior to performing the anastomosis in colorectal surgery. However, in our experience, it did not significantly lower the anastomotic leakage rate.