Internal validation of the Tampa Robotic Difficulty Scoring System: real-time assessment of the novel robotic scoring system in predicting clinical outcomes after hepatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: As the robotic approach in hepatectomy gains prominence, the need to establish a robotic-specific difficulty scoring system (DSS) is evident. The Tampa Difficulty Score was conceived to bridge this gap, offering a novel and dedicated robotic DSS aimed at improving preoperative surgical planning and predicting potential clinical challenges in robotic hepatectomies. In this study, we internally validated the recently published Tampa DSS by applying the scoring system to our most recent cohort of patients. METHODS: The Tampa Difficulty Score was applied to 170 recent patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy in our center. Patients were classified into: Group 1 (score 1-8, n = 23), Group 2 (score 9-24, n = 120), Group 3 (score 25-32, n = 20), and Group 4 (score 33-49, n = 7). Key variables for each of the groups were analyzed and compared. Statistical significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Notable correlations were found between the Tampa Difficulty Score and key clinical parameters such as operative duration (p < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), and percentage of major resection (p = 0.00007), affirming the score's predictive capacity for operative technical complexity. The Tampa Difficulty Score also correlated with major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (p < 0.0001), length of stay (p = 0.011), and 30-day readmission (p = 0.046) after robotic hepatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The Tampa Difficulty Score, through the internal validation process, has confirmed its effectiveness in predicting intra- and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. The predictive capacity of this system is useful in preoperative surgical planning and risk categorization. External validation is necessary to further explore the accuracy of this robotic DSS.

A comparative assessment of ACS NSQIP-predicted and actual surgical risk outcomes of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma resection at a high volume institution.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence is increasing in Western nations. There has been a shift toward minimally invasive approaches for transhiatal esophagectomy (THE). This study compares the outcomes of robotic THE for esophageal adenocarcinoma resection at our institution with the predicted metrics from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we prospectively followed 83 patients who underwent robotic THE from 2012 to 2023. Predicted outcomes were determined using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator. Our outcomes were compared with these predicted outcomes and with general outcomes for transhiatal esophagectomy reported in ACS NSQIP, which includes a mix of surgical approaches. The median age of patients was 70 years, with a body mass index (BMI) of 26.4 kg/m2 and a male prevalence of 82%. The median length of stay was 7 days. The rates of any complications and in-hospital mortality were 16% and 5%, respectively. Seven patients (8%) were readmitted within a 30-day postoperative window. The median survival is anticipated to surpass 95 months. Our outcomes were generally aligned with or surpassed the predicted ACS NSQIP metrics. The extended median survival of over 95 months highlights the potential effectiveness of robotic THE in the resection of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Further exploration into its long-term survival benefits and outcomes is warranted, along with studies that provide a more direct comparison between robotic and other surgical approaches.

Effect of IWATE laparoscopic difficulty score on postoperative outcomes and costs for robotic hepatectomy: Are complex resections more expensive?

BACKGROUND: The IWATE criteria, a four-level classification system for laparoscopic hepatectomy, measures technical complexity but lacks studies on its impact on outcomes and costs, especially in robotic surgeries. This study evaluated the effects of technical complexity on perioperative outcomes and costs in robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: Since 2013, we prospectively followed 500 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were classified into four levels of IWATE scores; (low [0-3], intermediate [4-6], advanced [7-9], and expert [10-12]) determined by tumor characteristics, liver function and resection extent. Perioperative variables were analyzed with significance accepted at a p-value ≤.05. RESULTS: Among 500 patients, 337 (67%) underwent advanced to expert-level operations. Median operative duration was 213 min (range: 16-817 min; mean ± SD: 240 ± 116.1 min; p < .001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 95 mL (range: 0-3500 mL; mean ± SD:142 ± 171.1 mL; p < .001). Both operative duration and EBL showed positive correlations with increasing IWATE scores. Median length of stay (LOS) of 3 days (range: 0-34; mean ± SD:4 ± 3.0 days; p < .001) significantly correlated with IWATE score. Total cost of $25 388 (range: $84-354 407; mean ± SD: 29752 ± 20106.8; p < .001) also significantly correlated with operative complexity, however hospital reimbursement did not. No correlation was found between IWATE score and postoperative complications or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical variables such as operative duration, EBL, and LOS correlate with IWATE difficulty scores in robotic hepatectomy. Financial metrics such as costs but not reimbursement received by the hospital correlate with IWATE scores.

The Oncological Stress Test of Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review in Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Therapy Compared to Upfront Resection Approach for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, increasingly diagnosed in the United States, has a disheartening initial resection rate of 15%. Neoadjuvant therapy, particularly FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-based regimens, is gaining favor for its potential to improve resectability rates and achieving microscopically negative margins (R0) in borderline resectable cases, marked by intricate arterial or venous involvement. Despite surgery being the sole curative approach, actual benefit of neoadjuvant therapy remains debatable. This study scrutinizes current literature on oncological outcomes post-resection of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to systematically compare oncological outcomes of patients treated with either neoadjuvant therapy with intent of curative resection or an "upfront resection" approach. A total of 1293 studies were initially screened and 30 were included (n = 1714) in this analysis. All studies included data on outcomes of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma being treated with neoadjuvant therapy (n = 1387) or a resection-first approach (n = 356). Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy underwent resection 52% of the time, achieving negative margins of 43% (n = 601). Approximately 77% of patients who received an upfront resection underwent a successful resection, with 39% achieving negative margins. Neoadjuvant therapy remains marginally efficacious in treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as patients undergo an operation and successful resection less often when treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Rates of curative resection are comparable, despite neoadjuvant therapy being a primary recommendation in borderline resectable cases and employed more often than upfront resection. Upfront resection may offer improved resection rates by intention-to-treat, which can provide more patients with paths to curative resection.

The robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach to biliary tract resection and reconstruction for benign indications: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Benign biliary disease (BBD) is a prevalent condition involving patients who require extrahepatic bile duct resections and reconstructions due to nonmalignant causes. METHODS: This study followed all patients who underwent biliary resections for BBD between 2015 and 2023. We excluded those with malignant conditions and patients who had an 'open' operation. Based on the patient's anatomy, the procedures employed were either robotic Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (RYHJ) or robotic choledochoduodenostomy (CDD). RESULTS: From the 33 patients studied, 23 were female, and 10 were male. Anesthesiology (ASA) class was 3 ± 0.5; the MELD score was 9 ± 4.1; the Child-Pugh score was 6 ± 1.7. The primary indications for undergoing the operation included iatrogenic bile duct injuries, biliary strictures, and type 1 choledochal cysts. The average surgical duration was about 272 min, and the average blood loss amounted to 79 mL. Postoperatively, three patients experienced major complications, all attributed to anastomotic leaks. The average hospital stay was 4 days, with a readmission rate of 15% within 30 days. During an average follow-up period of 33 months, one patient had to undergo a revision at 18 months due to stricture. This necessitated further duct resection and reanastomosis. Notably, there were no reported hepatectomies, no conversion to the 'open' method, no intraoperative complications, and no mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic extrahepatic bile duct resection and reconstruction with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy or choledochoduodenostomy is safe with an acceptable postoperative morbidity, short hospital length of stay, and low postoperative stricture rate at intermediate duration follow-up.

Is the robotic approach the future of distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy? A propensity score matched analysis.

Our study provides a comparative analysis of the Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) and robotic surgical approaches for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, examining their cosmetic advantages, patient outcomes, and operative efficiencies through propensity score matching (PSM). We prospectively followed 174 patients undergoing either the LESS or robotic procedure, matched by cell type, tumor size, age, sex, and BMI from 2012 to 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized for data adjustment, with results presented as median (mean ± SD). Post-PSM analysis showed no significant differences in age or BMI between the two groups. LESS approach exhibited a shorter operative duration (180(180 ± 52.0) vs. 248(262 ± 78.5) minutes, p = 0.0002), but increased estimated blood loss (200(317 ± 394.4) vs. 100 (128 ± 107.2) mL, p = 0.04). Rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, readmissions within 30 days, in-hospital mortalities, and costs were comparably similar between the two procedures. While the robotic approach led to lower blood loss, LESS was more time-efficient. Patient outcomes were similar in both methods, suggesting that the choice between these surgical techniques should balance cosmetic appeal with technical considerations.

Deconstructing the Operative Times of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Despite numerous benefits offered, robotic procedures take longer than "open" procedures. With the intent to reduce operative duration, we examined the degree each operative step contributes to operative duration in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 88 patients to determine the duration of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and the duration of 12 key steps. Each operative step was regressed against the operation date, from most distant to most recent operation date. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD) for illustrative purposes. RESULTS: Patients were 73 (71 ± 10.2) years old; 53% were men. Total time patient spent in the operating room was 471 (488 ± 93.3) minutes. Total operative time was 399 (421 ± 90.7) minutes. Total console time was 293 (297 ± 68.0) minutes. The 3 longest portions of the operation were (1) mobilization of the specimen and specimen extraction; (2) construction of the duodenojejunostomy; and (3) closure. CONCLUSION: A third of the operative time is spent off the console. Over half of the steps required more than 20 minutes each to complete. Since robotic operations are associated with shorter LOS and without increased complication rates relative to "open" operations, salutary benefit can be gained by decreasing operative times of robotic procedures. Operative duration is an important metric that needs to be addressed. We need to target the most time-consuming steps, and break them into smaller pieces, to reach optimal efficiency and provide the benefits of decreased operative duration to the patients, hospitals, and providers.

Weighing the outcomes: the role of BMI in complex robotic esophageal and hepatobiliary operations.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between body mass index (BMI) and surgical outcomes has emerged as a critical consideration in complex abdominal operations. While elevated BMI is often associated with increased perioperative risk, its specific effects on the outcomes of robotic surgeries remain inadequately explored. This study assesses the impact of BMI on perioperative variables of complex esophageal and hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) robotic operations. METHODS: Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 607 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE), major liver resection or distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, all performed robotically. Perioperative data retrieved included operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions to an 'open' operation and length of stay (LOS). Z scores were assigned to each variable to standardize operations, and the variables were then regressed against BMI. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median(mean ± standard deviation). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2020, surgeries included 71 THE, 122 distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, 129 major hepatectomies and 285 pancreaticoduodenectomies. Median age was 67(65 ± 12.5) years old, and BMI was 27(28 ± 5.5) kg/m2. Operative duration for all operations was 349(355 ± 124.5) min and had a positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.004), specifically for robotic THE and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with both operative durations having positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05). No significant correlation with BMI was found for EBL, intraoperative or postoperative complications, conversion to 'open' surgery, or LOS. CONCLUSION: Elevated BMI is associated with longer operative durations in select robotic surgeries, such as trans-hiatal esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, and highlights the need for strategic planning in these patients.

Hospital readmissions after robotic hepatectomy for neoplastic disease: Analysis of risk factors, survival, and economical impact. A logistical regression and propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: As the first comprehensive investigation into hospital readmissions following robotic hepatectomy for neoplastic disease, this study aims to fill a critical knowledge gap by evaluating risk factors associated with readmission and their impact on survival and the financial burden. METHODS: The study analyzed a database of robotic hepatectomy patients, comparing readmitted and non-readmitted individuals post-operatively using 1:1 propensity score matching. Statistical methods included Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, T-test, binomial logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Among 244 patients, 44 were readmitted within 90 days. Risk factors included hypertension (p â€‹= â€‹0.01), increased Child-Pugh score (p â€‹< â€‹0.01), and R1 margin status (p â€‹= â€‹0.05). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy correlated with lower readmission risk (p â€‹= â€‹0.045). Readmissions didn't significantly impact five-year survival (p â€‹= â€‹0.42) but increased fixed indirect hospital costs (p â€‹< â€‹0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission post-robotic hepatectomy correlates with hypertension, higher Child-Pugh scores, and R1 margins. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a lower admission rate due to less diffuse liver disease in these patients. While not affecting survival, readmissions elevate healthcare costs.

A decade of experience with minimally invasive anti-reflux operations: robot vs. LESS.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of robotic systems for anti-reflux operations prompted this study to evaluate and compare the efficacy of robotic and Laparo-Endoscopic Single-Site (LESS) approaches. METHODS: From 2012, 228 robotic fundoplication and 518 LESS fundoplication patients were prospectively followed, analyzing perioperative metrics. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD); significance at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Patients undergoing a robotic vs. LESS fundoplication were 67 (64 ± 13.7) vs. 61 (59 ± 15.1) years-old with BMIs of 25 (25 ± 3.2) vs. 26 (25 ± 3.9) kg/m2 (p = 0.001 and 1.00, respectively). 72% of patients who underwent the robotic approach had a previous abdominal operation(s) vs 44% who underwent the LESS approach (p = 0.0001). 38% vs. 8% had a re-operative fundoplication (p = 0.0001), 59% vs. 45% had a type IV hiatal hernia (p = 0.0004). Operative duration was 160 (176 ± 76.7) vs. 130 (135 ± 50.5) min (p = 0.0001). There were 0 (robotic) vs. 5 (LESS) conversions to a different approach (p = 0.33). 5 Patients vs. 3 patients experienced postoperative complications (p = 0.06), and length of stay (LOS) was 1 (2 ± 2.6) vs. 1 (1 ± 3.2) days (p = 0.0001). Patient symptomatic dysphagia preoperatively for the robotic vs. LESS approach was scored as 2 (2.4 ± 1.9) vs. 1 (1.9 ± 1.6). Postoperatively, symptomatic dysphagia was scored as 1 (1.5 ± 1.6) vs. 1 (1.7 ± 1.7). The change in these scores was - 1 (- 1 ± 2.2) vs. 0 (- 0.5 ± 2.2) (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Despite longer operative times and LOS in older patients, the robotic approach is efficient in undertaking very difficult operations, including patients with type IV or recurrent hiatal hernias. Furthermore, preoperative anti-reflux operations were more likely to be undertaken with the robotic approach than the LESS approach. The patient's postoperative symptomatic dysphagia improved relatively more than after the LESS approach. The vast majority of patients who underwent the LESS approach enjoyed improved cosmesis, thus, making LESS a stronger candidate for more routine operations. Despite patient selection bias, the robotic and LESS approaches to anti-reflux operations are safe, efficacious, and should be situationally utilized.

Effect of insurance status on perioperative outcomes after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis.

The influence of Medicaid or being uninsured is prevailingly thought to negatively impact a patient's socioeconomic and postoperative course, yet little has been published to support this claim specifically in reference to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study was undertaken to determine impact of health insurance type on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 364 patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were stratified by insurance status (i.e., Private, Medicare, and Medicaid/Uninsured); 100 patients were 2:2:1 propensity-score matched by age, BMI, ASA class, pathology, 8th edition AJCC staging, and tumor size. Perioperative variables were compared utilizing contingency testing and ANOVA. Statistical significance was accepted at a p-value ≤ 0.05 and data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The 100 patients undergoing propensity-score matching were 64 (65 ± 9.1) years old with a BMI of 27 (27 ± 4.9) kg/m2 and ASA class of 3 (3 ± 0.5). Operative duration was 421 (428 ± 105.9) minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 (385 ± 795.0) mL. There were 4 in-hospital deaths and 8 readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Total hospital cost was $32,064 (38,014 ± 22,205.94). After matching, no differences were found in pre-, intra-, and short-term postoperative variables among patients with different insurances, including hospital cost and time to initiate adjuvant treatment, which was 8 (9 ± 7.9) weeks for patients with malignant disease. In our hepatopancreaticobiliary program, health insurance status did not impact perioperative outcomes or hospital costs. These findings highlight that financial coverage does not influence quality of perioperative care, reinforcing the equity of robotic surgery.

Cost comparison between medicare and private insurance for robotic transhiatal esophagectomy.

Esophageal cancer is a significant health concern, with the robotic platform being increasingly adopted for transhiatal esophagectomy (THE). While literature exists regarding the cost of robotic THE and its benefits, there is limited data analyzing cost and concurrent hospital reimbursement based on payor or provider. This study aimed to compare hospital reimbursement after robotic THE for patients with Medicare versus private insurance. With IRB approval, a prospective study of 85 patients from 2012 to 2022 who underwent robotic THE was conducted. Private insurance was defined as coverage excluding Medicare, Medicaid, or self-pay. Statistical analyses involved Student's t test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test, with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). Among the 85 patients, 64 had Medicare, and 21 had private insurance. Medicare patients exhibited more frequent history of prior abdominal or thoracic surgeries (41% vs 10%, p < 0.01). Both groups showed no differences in factors like sex, body mass index, ASA classification, operative duration, estimated blood loss, conversions to 'open', tumor size, and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III). Similarly, metrics such as hospital stay duration, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and various financial components including total and variable costs, hospital reimbursement, and net margin were consistent across both. Despite Medicare patients being older and often having a broader operative history, hospital costs and reimbursements did not differ from patients with private insurance post-robotic THE. The robotic platform appears to mitigate potential disparities in hospitalization costs and hospital reimbursement for THE between Medicare and private insurance.

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.