A comparative analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in octogenarians.

Old age is a predictor of increased morbidity following pancreatic operations. This study was undertaken to compare the peri-operative variables between robotic and 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy, in octogenarians (≥ 80 years of age). Since 2012, with IRB approval, we retrospectively followed 69 patients, who underwent robotic (n = 42) and 'open' (n = 27) pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median(mean ± SD), and significance accepted with 95% probability. Patients who underwent the robotic approach had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index [6 (6 ± 1.6) vs 5 (5 ± 1.0), (p = 0.01)] and previous abdominal operations [n = 24 (57%) vs n = 9 (33%), (p = 0.04)]. The robotic approach led to longer operative time [426 (434 ± 95.8) vs 240 (254 ± 71.1) minutes, (p < 0.0001)], decreased blood loss [200 (291 ± 289.2) vs 426 (434 ± 95.8) mL (p = 0.008)], and decreased intraoperative blood transfusions (p < 0.05). Patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had comparable and at times superior outcomes, consistent with the literature regarding robotic and 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study indicates that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy continues to offer same benefits for patients of advanced age and demonstrates age should not be a preclusion to robotic operations.

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.

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.

Outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without preoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy is an alternative method against the deleterious effects of ischemic/reperfusion (I/R) injury and its inflammatory response. This study assessed the effect of preoperative HBO2 on patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Study Design: Patients were randomized via a computer-generated algorithm. Patients in the HBO2 cohort received two sessions of HBO2 the evening before and the morning of surgery. Measurements of inflammatory mediators and self-assessed pain scales were determined pre-and postoperatively. In addition, perioperative variables and long-term survival were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Results: 33 patients were included; 17 received preoperative HBO2, and 16 did not. There were no intraoperative or postoperative statistical differences between patients with or without preoperative HBO2. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), IL-6, and IL-10 increased slightly before returning to normal, while TGF-alpha decreased before increasing. However, there were no differences with or without HBO2. At postoperative day 30, the pain level measured with VAS score (Visual Analog Score) was lower after HBO2 (1 ± 1.3 vs. 3 ± 3.0, p=0.05). Eleven (76%) patients in the HBO2 cohort and 12 (75%) patients in the non- HBO2 had malignant pathology. The percentage of positive lymph nodes in the HBO2 was 7% compared to 14% in the non-HBO2 (p<0.001). Overall survival was inferior after HBO2 compared to the non- HBO2 (p=0.03). Conclusions: Preoperative HBO2 did not affect perioperative outcomes or significantly change the inflammatory mediators for patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Long-term survival was inferior after preoperative HBO2. Further randomized controlled studies are required to assess the full impact of this treatment on patients' prognosis.

Learning Curve Analysis After 500 Robotic Hepatectomies.

BACKGROUND: The robotic platform is growing in popularity for hepatobiliary resections. While the learning curve for basic competency has been reported, this is the first study to analyze the learning curve to achieve long-term mastery on a decade of experience with over 500 robotic hepatectomies. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, 500 consecutive robotic hepatectomies from 2013-2023 were analyzed. Cumulative Sum Chart (CUSUM) analysis using operative duration was utilized to determine the learning curves. RESULTS: 500 patients were included in this study: 46% men 54% women, aged 63(61 ± 14.6) years, with BMI 28(29 ± 8.0) kg/m2, MELD 7(8 ± 3.0), ALBI -3(-3 ± 0.6) and Child-Pugh score 5(5 ± 0.7). Operative duration was 235(260.1 ± 131.9) minutes, EBL was 100(165 ± 208.1) mL, tumor size was 4(5 ± 3.5) cm, and 94% achieved R0 margins. Length of hospital stay was 3(4 ± 3.7) days with 4% of patient had major complications. 30-day readmission was 17% with 30-day mortality of 2%, and 90-day mortality of 3%. On CUSUM analysis, the learning curve for minor resection (n=215) was 75 cases, major resection (n=154) was 100 cases, and technically challenging minor resection (n=131) was 57 cases. As we gained experience, we had shorter operative duration, lower blood loss, higher R0 resections, and lower major postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum number of robotic hepatectomies to overcome the learning curves for mastery of minor, major, and technically challenging minor resections was significant. This can help guide surgeons in their early experience to optimize patient safety and outcomes.

Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system. RESULTS: Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSION: In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

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.

Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05. RESULTS: IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05). DISCUSSION: Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.

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.

The weight of BMI in impacting postoperative and oncologic outcomes in pancreaticoduodenectomy is attenuated by a robotic approach.

This study was undertaken to observe the effect of body mass index (BMI) on perioperative outcomes and survival when comparing robotic vs 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 505 consecutive patients who underwent either robotic or 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2012 to 2021. For illustrative purposes, patients were separated based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention BMI table but regression analysis was utilized to identify significant relationships involving BMI. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was determined at p ≤ 0.05. 205 and 300 patients underwent 'open' and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Neither sex nor age correlated with BMI in patients undergoing 'open' nor robotic operation. Operative duration correlated with increasing BMI in each operational approach, which was statistically significant for those receiving the 'open' operation (p = 0.02). There were statistically significantly fewer lymph nodes harvested with rising BMI in patients that had an 'open' operation (p = 0.01), but no such difference was found in patients undergoing the robotic approach. Length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality were statistically significantly associated with rising BMI when an 'open' operation was undertaken (p = 0.02 and p = 0.0002, respectively) but not when the robotic platform was utilized. Patients with higher BMI had significantly longer operative duration, smaller lymph node harvest, greater LOS, and increased in-hospital mortality rate when undergoing 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Thus, the robotic platform may attenuate the increased technical and oncologic difficulties associated with a greater BMI in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

The effects of smoking history on robotic transhiatal esophagectomy patient outcomes.

Esophageal resection for the treatment of esophageal cancer generally entails high rates of morbidity and mortality. Patients with a smoking history have increased post-operative complications following esophagectomy. This study was undertaken to determine how smoking or a history of smoking can affect perioperative outcomes and morbidity following robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. 75 patients were prospectively followed and divided; 44 patients actively smoking or with a history of significant smoking were classified as 'smokers', while the other 31 patients were classified as 'non-smokers'. Significance was determined at a p-value of ≤ 0.05 and data are presented as median (mean ± SD). 'Smokers' averaged 70(70 ± 7.8) years, 89% male, with 82% undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. 'Nonsmokers' averaged 68(69 ± 7.8) years, 74% male, and 74% receiving neoadjuvant therapy. BMI and ASA class showed no significant difference between the cohorts. 'Smokers' had an operative time of 341(343 ± 91.0) minutes and a blood loss of 150(191 ± 140.0) mL; 'nonsmokers' had 291(298 ± 65.9) minutes and 100(140 ± 120.9) mL, respectively (p = 0.02 for operative time). Tumor size and AJCC staging were similar for both cohorts. No significant differences were noted in postoperative complications, Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, or 30-day readmissions. Survival rates were comparable. Hospital costs for 'smokers' were $33,131(41,091 ± 23,465.17) and $34,896 (62,154 ± 65,839.53) for 'nonsmokers' (p = 0.05). Profit/loss was $-23,155 (- 15,137 ± 35,819.29) for smokers and $-23,720 (- 16,716 ± 50,864.64) for nonsmokers. Current or past 'smokers' had longer operative times and lower costs following robotic transhiatal esophagectomy, with no significant difference in postoperative complications or survival compared to 'non-smokers'.

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.

Epidural versus general anesthesia for laparo-endoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study compares outcomes after LESS cholecystectomy utilizing epidural versus general anesthesia. METHODS: Patients undergoing LESS Cholecystectomy were randomized into receiving epidural or general anesthesia by protocol. Patients used a Visual Analog Scale to rate pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (severe pain). Data presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). RESULTS: 75 patients underwent LESS cholecystectomy with general anesthesia [32 patients (22% men) after five patients withdrew consent] or epidural anesthesia [23 patients (22% men) after 15 patients withdrew consent]. Respectively, they were of age 38 years (41 ± 15.1) and 47 years (48 ± 13.9), BMI 29 (28 ± 4.9) kg/m2 and 28 (28 ± 3.8) kg/m2, and ASA 2 (2 ± 0.5) and 2 (2 ± 0.3) (p > 0.05 for all). LOS for patients receiving general vs. epidural anesthesia was 72 min (122 ± 104.4) vs. 95 min (113 ± 77.5) (p = 0.25). On POD 0, patients receiving general anesthesia rated pain as 4 (4 ± 2.9) vs. 0 (1 ± 2.2) for epidural anesthesia (p = 0.02). On POD 1, they rated pain as 6 (5 ± 2.3) vs. 6 (6 ± 2.9) (p = 0.68). On POD 6, patients rated pain as 3 (3 ± 2.7) vs. 4 (3 ± 2.2) (p = 1.00). For patient satisfaction with incisional scars for those receiving general vs. epidural anesthesia, patients rated their scars to be 10 (8 ± 3.6) vs. 10 (9 ± 1.2) (p = 0.21). Total costs for the hospital using general vs. epidural anesthesia were found $6,909 (7,167 ± 2,083.8) vs. $6,225 (5,848 ± 1530.1) (p = 0.014), respectively. Patients self-assessed satisfaction on a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best) as a 5 (5 ± 0). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy with general vs. epidural anesthesia had similar demographics, LOS, and pain scores. Patients that received epidural anesthesia reported less pain and incurred less cost. Utilization of epidural anesthesia in lieu of general anesthesia for LESS cholecystectomy is safe, reduces pain, and offers potential cost savings.

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.

Analysis of survival outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for malignant liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased adoption of the robotic platform for complex hepatobiliary resections for malignant disease, little is known about long-term survival outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term survival rates after a robotic hepatectomy for five major malignant disease processes. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease was reviewed. Pathologies included colorectal liver metastases (CLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), Klatskin tumor, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gallbladder cancer (GC). Data are presented as median (mean â€‹± â€‹standard deviation) for illustrative purposes. RESULTS: Of the 210 consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease, 75 (35 â€‹%) had CLM, 69 (33 â€‹%) had HCC, 27 (13 â€‹%) had Klatskin tumor, 20 (10 â€‹%) had IHCC, and 19 (9 â€‹%) had GC. Patients were 66 (65 â€‹± â€‹12.4) years old with a BMI of 29 (29 â€‹± â€‹6.5) kg/m2. R0 resection was achieved in 91 â€‹%, and 65 â€‹% underwent a major hepatectomy. Postoperative major complication rate was 6 â€‹%, length of stay was four (5 â€‹± â€‹4.3) days, and 30-day readmission rate was 17 â€‹%. Survival at 1, 3, and 5-years were 93 â€‹%/75 â€‹%/72 â€‹% for CLM, 84 â€‹%/71 â€‹%/64 â€‹% for HCC, 73 â€‹%/55 â€‹%/55 â€‹% for Klatskin tumor, 80 â€‹%/69 â€‹%/69 â€‹% for IHCC, 79 â€‹%/65 â€‹%/65 â€‹% for GC. CONCLUSION: This study suggests a favorable 5-year overall survival benefit with use of the robotic platform in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Klatskin tumor, and gallbladder cancer. The robotic platform facilitates fine dissection in complex hepatobiliary operations, with a high rate of R0 resections and excellent perioperative clinical outcomes.