[Endovascular versus surgical treatment in subarachnoid haemorrhage: Cost analysis]. / Costes del tratamiento endovascular frente al quirúrgico en hemorragia subaracnoidea aneurismática.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse costs of endovascular versus surgical treatment in 80 patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed data on 80 consecutive patients with aSAH between January 2010 and June 2011. Endovascular treatment was used in 57 patients and surgical in 23 patients. Demographic (gender and age) and clinical data (Hunt-Hess and Fisher scales), length of stay (ICU and ward) and results at 6 months (Glasgow outcome scale,[GOS]) were collected. Costs including stay, follow-up, complications and retreatments were calculated. RESULTS: Age was higher in the endovascular group (statistically significant). There were no differences between the 2 groups in Hunt-Hess and Fisher scales. Results at 6 months were also similar, although slightly better in the surgical group. Length of stay was longer in surgical patients, both in ICU (mean 1.4 days) and ward (1.7 days). Hospitalisation length was also related to age and Hunt-Hess and Fisher scales. Costs from embolisation devices, follow-up and retreatment (12% in this series) made final endovascular treatment 4.1% more expensive than surgical treatment (€35,835 versus €34,404). Endovascular procedure (including retreatments) was 110% more expensive than surgical treatment (€8,015 versus €3,817). CONCLUSIONS: There are no differences between the 2 treatments in terms of morbidity and mortality. Stability of surgical treatment was higher than that of endovascular, with better occlusion and lower retreatment rates. Endovascular treatment is more expensive in ruptured aneurysms, principally due to embolisation device costs, long-term follow-up and retreatments, in retreatments, in spite of shorter hospital stay. In incidental aneurysms, which usually need shorter hospitalisation, differences between the 2 treatments could be even larger.

[Applicability of the da Vinci robotic system in the skull base surgical approach. Preclinical investigation]. / Aplicabilidad del sistema da Vinci en el abordaje transoral a la base del cráneo. Investigación preclínica.

INTRODUCTION: The role of robotic surgery is well established in various specialties such as urology and general surgery, but not in others such as neurosurgery and otolaryngology. In the case of surgery of the skull base, it has just emerged from an experimental phase. OBJECTIVE: To investigate possible applications of the da Vinci surgical robot in transoral skull base surgery, comparing it with the authors' experience using conventional endoscopic transnasal surgery in the same region. METHODS: A transoral transpalatal approach to the nasopharynx and medial skull base was performed on 4 cryopreserved cadaver heads. We used the da Vinci robot, a 30° standard endoscope 12mm thick, dual camera and dual illumination, Maryland forceps on the left terminal and curved scissors on the right, both 8mm thick. Bone drilling was performed manually. For the anatomical study of this region, we used 0.5cm axial slices from a plastinated cadaver head. RESULTS: Various skull base structures at different depths were reached with relative ease with the robot terminals CONCLUSIONS: Transoral robotic surgery with the da Vinci system provides potential advantages over conventional endoscopic transnasal surgery in the surgical approach to this region.

Costes del tratamiento endovascular frente al quirúrgico en hemorragia subaracnoidea aneurismática / Endovascular versus surgical treatment in subarachnoid haemorrhage: Cost analysis

Objetivo: Evaluar los costes derivados del tratamiento quirúrgico y endovascular de una serie consecutiva de 80 pacientes con hemorragia subaracnoidea aneurismática (HSAa). Material y métodos: Se revisan 80 pacientes ingresados en nuestro centro con HSA aneurismática que recibieron tratamiento endovascular (EV) (n = 57) o quirúrgico (Q) (n = 23) entre enero de 2010 y junio de 2011. Se analizan datos demográficos (edad y sexo), clínicos (Fischer y Hunt-Hess al ingreso) y los resultados (GOS a los 6 meses) de ambas series. Se registra estancia hospitalaria (UCI y planta), coste del tratamiento (número de coils, catéteres, craneotomía…), del seguimiento (arteriografías de control, angio-RMN) y de los retratamientos de cada una de las técnicas. Se calculan los costes según los precios medios estimados de hospitalización, material fungible y procedimientos. Resultados: No hay grandes diferencias entre ambas series en cuanto a características clínicas (edad, Hunt-Hess y Fischer) ni a los resultados a los 6 meses medidos en la escala GOS. Existen diferencias en cuanto al tiempo de hospitalización tanto en UCI (superior en algo más de 1,4 días en el grupo Q) como en planta (1,7 días más). La hospitalización también se relaciona con la edad, la puntuación de Hunt-Hess y la de Fischer. Los gastos derivados de los materiales de embolización, del seguimiento y de los retratamientos (un 12% de la serie EV) hace que el coste global tratamiento endovascular sea un 4,1% más caro que el quirúrgico (35.835 Euros versus 34.404 Euros). El procedimiento endovascular en sí, incluyendo los retratamientos resulta un 110% más caro que el quirúrgico (8.015 Euros versus 3.817 Euros). Conclusiones: Los resultados en cuanto a morbimortalidad obtenidos mediante tratamiento quirúrgico o embolizador no son diferentes. La estabilidad del tratamiento quirúrgico es superior al del endovascular, con mayores tasas de oclusión y menor necesidad de retratamiento. El tratamiento endovascular resulta más caro que el quirúrgico en aneurismas rotos, fundamentalmente debido al precio de los materiales de embolización, a la tasa de retratamientos y al seguimiento que precisan. Estas diferencias podrían ser aún más significativas en el caso de aneurismas no rotos, en los que se presupone un ingreso hospitalario menor, fuente principal del gasto en el tratamiento quirúrgico de esta patología

Objectives: To analyse costs of endovascular versus surgical treatment in 80 patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH). Material and methods: We analysed data on 80 consecutive patients with aSAH between January 2010 and June 2011. Endovascular treatment was used in 57 patients and surgical in 23 patients. Demographic (gender and age) and clinical data (Hunt-Hess and Fisher scales), length of stay (ICU and ward) and results at 6 months (Glasgow outcome scale, [GOS]) were collected. Costs including stay, follow-up, complications and retreatments were calculated. Results: Age was higher in the endovascular group (statistically significant). There were no differences between the 2 groups in Hunt-Hess and Fisher scales. Results at 6 months were also similar, although slightly better in the surgical group. Length of stay was longer in surgical patients, both in ICU (mean 1.4 days) and ward (1.7 days). Hospitalisation length was also related to age and Hunt-Hess and Fisher scales. Costs from embolisation devices, follow-up and retreatment (12% in this series) made final endovascular treatment 4.1% more expensive than surgical treatment (Euros 35,835 versus Euros 34,404). Endovascular procedure (including retreatments) was 110% more expensive than surgical treatment (Euros 8,015 versus Euros 3,817). Conclusions: There are no differences between the 2 treatments in terms of morbidity and mortality. Stability of surgical treatment was higher than that of endovascular, with better occlusion and lower retreatment rates. Endovascular treatment is more expensive in ruptured aneurysms, principally due to embolisation device costs, long-term follow-up and retreatments, in retreatments, in spite of shorter hospital stay. In incidental aneurysms, which usually need shorter hospitalisation, differences between the 2 treatments could be even larger

Aplicabilidad del sistema da Vinci en el abordaje transoral a la base del cráneo. Investigación preclínica / Applicability of the da Vinci robotic system in the skull base surgical approach. Preclinical investigation

Introducción: El papel de la cirugía robótica está claramente establecido en diversas especialidades como Urología o Cirugía General, pero no así en otras como Neurocirugía u Otorrinolaringología, y en el caso concreto de la Cirugía de base de cráneo, apenas ha pasado de una fase experimental. Objetivo: Investigar las posibilidades de la aplicación del robot quirúrgico da Vinci en cirugía transoral de base de cráneo comparándola con la experiencia de los autores en cirugía endoscópica transnasal convencional de la misma región. Métodos: se llevó a cabo un abordaje transoral transpalatino a la rinofaringe y la base del cráneo medial en 4 cabezas de cadáver criopreservadas. Se empleó el robot da Vinci, con endoscopio de 30° y 12mm de grosor, con doble cámara e iluminación doble, pinza de Maryland en el terminal izquierdo y tijera curva en el derecho, ambos de 8mm de grosor. El fresado óseo se realizó manualmente. Para el estudio anatómico de la región a abordar se emplearon cortes axiales de 0,5cm de grosor de una cabeza de cadáver plastinada. Resultados: Con los terminales del robot se alcanzaron con relativa facilidad diversas estructuras de la base del cráneo a distintos niveles de profundidad. Conclusiones: La cirugía robótica transoral con el sistema da Vinci aporta posibles ventajas sobre la cirugía endoscópica transnasal convencional en el abordaje quirúrgico de esta región

Introduction: The role of robotic surgery is well established in various specialties such as urology and general surgery, but not in others such as neurosurgery and otolaryngology. In the case of surgery of the skull base, it has just emerged from an experimental phase. Objective: To investigate possible applications of the da Vinci surgical robot in transoral skull base surgery, comparing it with the authors’ experience using conventional endoscopic transnasal surgery in the same region. Methods: A transoral transpalatal approach to the nasopharynx and medial skull base was performed on 4 cryopreserved cadaver heads. We used the da Vinci robot, a 30° standard endoscope 12mm thick, dual camera and dual illumination, Maryland forceps on the left terminal and curved scissors on the right, both 8mm thick. Bone drilling was performed manually. For the anatomical study of this region, we used 0.5cm axial slices from a plastinated cadaver head. Results: Various skull base structures at different depths were reached with relative ease with the robot terminals Conclusions: Transoral robotic surgery with the da Vinci system provides potential advantages over conventional endoscopic transnasal surgery in the surgical approach to this region