A retrospective cohort study of intra-corporeal versus extra-corporeal anastomosis for right hemicolectomy with cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare outcomes and cost effectiveness of extra-corporeal anastomosis (ECA) versus intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme data. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from January 2018 to December 2022 were identified. Non-cancer diagnoses, emergency procedures or synchronous resection of other organs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival and hospitalisation costs were compared. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients (175 ECA, 48 ICA) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts exhibited comparable baseline patient, comorbidity, and tumour characteristics. Distribution of pathological TMN stage, tumour largest dimension, total lymph node harvest and resection margin lengths were statistically similar. ICA was associated with a longer median operative duration compared with ECA (255 min vs. 220 min, P < 0.001). There was a quicker time to gastrointestinal recovery, with a shorter median hospital stay in the ICA group (4.0 versus 5.0 days, P = 0.001). Overall complication rates were comparable. ICA was associated with a higher surgical procedure cost (£6301.57 versus £4998.52, P < 0.001), but lower costs for ward accommodation (£1679.05 versus £2420.15, P = 0.001) and treatment (£3774.55 versus £4895.14, P = 0.009), with a 4.5% reduced overall cost compared with ECA. The ICER of -£3323.58 showed ICA to be more cost effective than ECA, across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: ICA in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is associated with quicker post-operative recovery and may be more cost effective compared with ECA, despite increased operative costs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for primary hepatolithiasis: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatolithiasis confers better clinical benefit and lower hospital costs than open hepatectomy (OH). This study aim to evaluate the clinical and economic value of LH versus OH. METHODS: Patients undergoing OH or LH for primary hepatolithiasis at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between 2015 and 2022 were divided into OH group and LH group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data. Deviation-based cost modelling and weighted average median cost (WAMC) were used to assess and compare the economic value. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients were identified. After exclusions, 403 patients with primary hepatolithiasis underwent anatomical hepatectomy (OH n=143; LH n=260). PSM resulted in 2 groups of 100 patients each. Although LH required a longer median operation duration compared with OH (285.0 versus 240.0 min, respectively, P<0.001), LH patients had fewer wound infections, fewer pre-discharge overall complications (26 versus 43%, respectively, P=0.009), and shorter median postoperative hospital stays (8.0 versus 12.0 days, respectively, P<0.001). No differences were found in blood loss, major complications, stone clearance, and mortality between the two matched groups. However, the median overall hospital cost of LH was significantly higher than that of OH (CNY¥52,196.1 versus 45,349.5, respectively, P=0.007). Although LH patients had shorter median postoperative hospital stays and fewer complications than OH patients, the WAMC was still higher for the LH group than for the OH group with an increase of CNY¥9,755.2 per patient undergoing LH. CONCLUSION: The overall clinical benefit of LH for hepatolithiasis is comparable or even superior to that of OH, but with an economic disadvantage. There is a need to effectively reduce the hospital costs of LH and the gap between costs and diagnosis-related group reimbursement to promote its adoption.

Management of Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Adults: A Nationwide Analysis From 2018 to 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Nonoperative management (NOM) of uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) has been increasingly utilized in recent years. The aim of this study was to describe nationwide trends of sociodemographic characteristics, outcomes, and costs of patients undergoing medical versus surgical management for UA. METHODS: The 2018-2019 National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample was queried for adults (age ≥18 y) with UA; diagnosis, as well as laparoscopic and open appendectomy, were defined by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We examined several characteristics, including cost of care and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Among the 167,125 patients with UA, 137,644 (82.4%) underwent operative management and 29,481 (17.6%) underwent NOM. In bivariate analysis, we found that patients who had NOM were older (53 versus 43 y, P < 0.001) and more likely to have Medicare (33.6% versus 16.1%, P < 0.001), with higher prevalence of comorbidities such as diabetes (7.8% versus 5.5%, P < 0.001). The majority of NOM patients were treated at urban teaching hospitals (74.5% versus 66.3%, P < 0.001). They had longer LOS's (5.4 versus 2.3 d, P < 0.001) with higher inpatient costs ($15,584 versus $11,559, P < 0.001) than those who had an appendectomy. Through logistic regression we found that older patients had up to 4.03-times greater odds of undergoing NOM (95% CI: 3.22-5.05, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: NOM of UA is more commonly utilized in patients with comorbidities, older age, and those treated in teaching hospitals. This may, however, come at the price of longer length of stay and higher costs. Further guidelines need to be developed to clearly delineate which patients could benefit from NOM.

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.

Comparisons of in-hospital fee and surgical outcomes between robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open radical cystectomy: a Japanese nationwide study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in-hospital fees and surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC) using a Japanese nationwide database. METHODS: All data were obtained from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database between April 2020 and March 2022. Basic characteristics and perioperative indicators, including in-hospital fees, were compared among the RARC, LRC and ORC groups. Propensity score-matched comparisons were performed to assess the differences between RARC and ORC. RESULTS: During the study period, 2931, 1311 and 2435 cases of RARC, LRC and ORC were identified, respectively. The RARC group had the lowest in-hospital fee (median: 2.38 million yen), the shortest hospital stay (26 days) and the lowest blood transfusion rate (29.5%), as well as the lowest complication rate (20.9%), despite having the longest anesthesia time (569 min) among the three groups (all P < 0.01). The outcomes of LRC were comparable with those of RARC, and the differences in these indicators between the RARC and ORC groups were greater than those between the RARC and LRC groups. In propensity score-matched comparisons between the RARC and ORC groups, the differences in the indicators remained significant (all P < 0.01), with an ~50 000 yen difference in in-hospital fees. CONCLUSIONS: RARC and LRC were considered to be more cost-effective surgeries than ORC due to their superior surgical outcomes and comparable surgical fees in Japan. The widespread adoption of RARC and LRC is expected to bring economic benefits to Japanese society.

Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of 3 Different Laparoscopic Approach for Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of 551 Cases.

BACKGROUND: At our institution, we switched from hand-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HRN) to hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HTN); we later switched to standard retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SRN). This study was performed to evaluate outcomes and hospital costs among the 3 techniques. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, single-center, inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis study compared the outcomes among 551 cases of living donor kidney transplantation between 2014 and 2022. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there were 114 cases in the HRN group, 204 cases in the HTN group, and 213 cases in the SRN group. Donor complication rates were lowest in the SRN group but did not differ between the HRN and HTN groups (1.1 vs 4.4 and 5.9%, P = .021). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest serum C-reactive protein concentrations on postoperative day 1 (4.3 vs 10.5 and 7.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the shortest postoperative stay (4.3 vs 7.4 and 8.4 days, P < .001). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest total cost among the 3 groups (8868 vs 9709 and 10,592 USD, P < .0001). Donors in the SRN group also had the lowest costs in terms of "basic medical fees," "medication and injection fees," "Intraoperative drug and material costs," and "testing fees." Furthermore, the presence of complications was significantly correlated with higher total hospital costs (P < .001). CONCLUSION: SRN appeared to have the least invasive and complication, and a potential cost savings compared with the HRN and HTN.

A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this systematic review of the literature is to compare a selection of currently utilized disposable and reusable laparoscopic medical devices in terms of safety (1st criteria), cost and carbon footprint. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was carried out on electronic databases for articles published up until 6 May 2022. The eligible works were prospective (randomized or not) or retrospective clinical or medical-economic comparative studies having compared disposable scissors, trocars, and mechanical endoscopic staplers to the same instruments in reusable. Two different independent examiners extracted the relevant data. RESULTS: Among the 2882 articles found, 156 abstracts were retained for examination. After comprehensive analysis concerning the safety and effectiveness of the instruments, we included four articles. A study on trocars highlighted increased vascular complications with disposable instruments, and another study found more perioperative incidents with a hybrid stapler as opposed to a disposable stapler. As regards cost analysis, we included 11 studies, all of which showed significantly higher costs with disposable instruments. The results of the one study on carbon footprints showed that hybrid instruments leave four times less of a carbon footprint than disposable instruments. CONCLUSION: The literature on the theme remains extremely limited. Our review demonstrated that from a medical and economic standpoint, reusable medical instruments, particularly trocars, presented appreciable advantages. While there exist few data on the ecological impact, those that do exist are unmistakably favorable to reusable instruments.

Clinical outcomes and cost comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients over 80 years.

PURPOSE: The growth of Singapore's geriatric population, coupled with the rise in colorectal cancer (CRC), has increased the number of colorectal surgeries performed on elderly patients. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus open elective colorectal resections in elderly CRC patients over 80 years. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) identified patients over 80 years undergoing elective colectomy and proctectomy between 2018 and 2021. Patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), 30-day postoperative complications, and mortality rates were analysed. Cost data in Singapore dollars were obtained from the finance database. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to determine cost drivers. The 5-year overall survival (OS) for the entire octogenarian CRC cohort with and without postoperative complications was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 192 octogenarian CRC patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between 2018 and 2021, 114 underwent laparoscopic resection (59.4%), while 78 underwent open surgery (40.6%). The proportion of proctectomy cases was similar between laparoscopic and open groups (24.6% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.949). Baseline characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index, albumin level, and tumour staging, were comparable between both groups. Median operative duration was 52.5 min longer in the laparoscopic group (232.5 vs. 180.0 min, P < 0.001). Both groups had no significant differences in postoperative complications and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. Median LOS was 6 days in the laparoscopic group compared to 9 days in the open group (P < 0.001). The mean total cost was 11.7% lower in the laparoscopic group (S$25,583.44 vs. S$28,970.85, P = 0.012). Proctectomy (P = 0.024), postoperative pneumonia (P < 0.001) and urinary tract infection (P < 0.001), and prolonged LOS > 6 days (P < 0.001) were factors contributing to increased costs in the entire cohort. The 5-year OS of octogenarians with minor or major postoperative complications was significantly lower than those without complications (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection is associated with significantly reduced overall hospitalization costs and decreased LOS compared to open resection among octogenarian CRC patients, with comparable postoperative outcomes and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. The extended operative time and higher consumables costs from laparoscopic resection were mitigated by the decrease in other inpatient hospitalization costs, including ward accommodation, daily treatment fees, investigation costs, and rehabilitation expenditures. Comprehensive perioperative care and optimised surgical approach to mitigate the impact of postoperative complications can improve survival in elderly patients undergoing CRC resection.

LAPAROSCOPIC AND LAPAROTOMY BARIATRIC SURGERY IN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL: ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS AND COMPLICATIONS?

BACKGROUND: Despite its increasing popularity, laparoscopy is not the option for bariatric surgeries performed in the Brazilian public health system. AIMS: To compare laparotomy and laparoscopic access in bariatric surgery, considering aspects such as morbidity, mortality, costs, and length of stay. METHODS: The study included 80 patients who were randomly assigned to perform a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. They were equally divided in two groups, laparoscopic and laparotomy. The results obtained in the postoperative period were evaluated and compared according to the Ministry of Health protocol, and later, in their outpatient returns. RESULTS: The surgical time was similar in both groups (p=0.240). The costs of laparoscopic surgery proved to be higher, mainly due to staplers and staples. The patients included in the laparotomy group presented higher rates of severe complications, such as incisional hernia (p<0.001). Costs related to social security and management of postoperative complications were higher in the open surgery group (R$ 1,876.00 vs R$ 34,268.91). CONCLUSIONS: The costs related to social security and treatment of complications were substantially lower in laparoscopic access when compared to laparotomy. However, considering the operative procedure itself, the laparotomy remained cheaper. Finally, the length of stay, the rate of complications, and return to labor had more favorable results in the laparoscopic route.

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. METHODS: 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. RESULTS: The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. CONCLUSION: RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

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.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic). METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.