Is newer always better?: comparing cost and short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy.

BACKGROUND: Enthusiasm is high for expansion of robotic assisted surgery into right hemicolectomy. But data on outcomes and cost is lacking. Our objective was to determine the association between surgical approach and cost for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy. We hypothesized that a robot approach would have increased costs (both economic and opportunity) while achieving similar short-term outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with a simulation of operating room utilization at a quaternary care, academic institution. We enrolled patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy from November 2017 to August 2019. Patients were categorized by the intended approach- laparoscopic or robotic. The primary outcome was the technical variable direct cost. Secondary outcomes included total cost, supply cost, operating room utilization, operative time, conversion, length of stay and 30-day post-operative outcomes. RESULTS: 79 patients were included in the study. A robotic approach was used in 22% of the cohort. The groups differed significantly only in etiology of surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with a 1.5 times increase in the technical variable direct cost (p < 0.001), increased supply cost (2.6 times; p < 0.001) and increased total cost (1.3 times; p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in median room time (Robotic: 285 min vs. Laparoscopic: 170 min; p < 0.001) and procedure time (Robotic: 203 min vs. Laparoscopic: 118 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences observed in post-operative outcomes including length of stay or readmission. In a simulation of OR utilization, 45 laparoscopic right hemicolectomies could be performed in an OR in a month compared to 31 robotic cases. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic right hemicolectomy was associated with increased costs with no improvement in post-operative outcomes. In a simulation of operating room efficiency, a robotic approach was associated with 14 fewer cases per month. Practitioners and administrators should be aware of the increased cost of a robotic approach.

The contribution of E3D imaging integrated with robotic navigation: analysis of the first 80 consecutive posterior spinal fusion cases.

Eighty consecutive complex spinal robotic cases utilizing intraoperative 3D CT imaging (E3D, Group 2) were compared to 80 age-matched controls using the Excelsius robot alone with C-arm Fluoroscopic registration (Robot Only, Group 1). The demographics between the two groups were similar-severity of deformity, ASA Score for general anesthesia, patient age, gender, number of spinal levels instrumented, number of patients with prior spinal surgery, and amount of neurologic compression. The intraoperative CT scanning added several objective factors improving patient safety. There were significantly fewer complications in the E3D group with only 3 of 80 (4%) patients requiring a return to the operating room compared to 11 of 80 (14%) patients in the Robot Only Group requiring repeat surgery for implant related problems (Chi squared analysis = 5.00, p = 0.025). There was a significant reduction the amount of fluoroscopy time in the E3D Group (36 s, range 4-102 s) compared to Robot only group (51 s, range 15-160 s) (p = 0.0001). There was also shorter mean operative time in the E3D group (257 ± 59.5 min) compared to the robot only group (306 ± 73.8 min) due to much faster registration time (45 s). A longer registration time was required in the Robot only group to register each vertebral level with AP and Lateral fluoroscopy shots. The estimated blood loss was also significantly lower in Group 2 (mean 345 ± 225 ml) vs Group 1 (474 ± 397 ml) (p = 0.012). The mean hospital length of stay was also significantly shorter for Group 2 (3.77 ± 1.86 days) compared to Group 1 (5.16 ± 3.40) (p = 0.022). There was no significant difference in the number of interbody implants nor corrective osteotomies in both groups-Robot only 52 cases vs. 42 cases in E3D group.Level of evidence: IV, Retrospective review.

100 Complex posterior spinal fusion cases performed with robotic instrumentation.

Robotic navigation has been shown to increase precision, accuracy, and safety during spinal reconstructive procedures. There is a paucity of literature describing the best techniques for robotic-assisted spine surgery for complex, multilevel cases or in cases of significant deformity correction. We present a case series of 100 consecutive multilevel posterior spinal fusion procedures performed for multilevel spinal disease and/or deformity correction. 100 consecutive posterior spinal fusions were performed for multilevel disease and/or deformity correction utilizing robotic-assisted placement of pedicle screws. The primary outcome was surgery-related failure, which was defined as hardware breakage or reoperation with removal of hardware. A total of 100 consecutive patients met inclusion criteria. Among cases included, 31 were revision surgeries with existing hardware in place. The mean number of levels fused was 5.6, the mean operative time was 303 min, and the mean estimated blood loss was 469 mL. 28 cases included robotic-assisted placement of S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws. In total, 1043 pedicle screws and 53 S2AI screws were placed with robotic-assistance. The failure rate using survivorship analysis was 18/1043 (1.7%) and the failure rate of S2AI screws using survivorship analysis was 3/53 (5.7%). Four patients developed postoperative wound infections requiring irrigation and debridement procedures. None of the 1043 pedicle screws nor the 53 S2AI screws required reoperation due to malpositioning or suboptimal placement. This case series of 100 multilevel posterior spinal fusion procedures demonstrates promising results with low failure rates. With 1043 pedicle screws and 53 S2AI screws, we report low failure rates of 1.7% and 5.7%, respectively with zero cases of screw malpositioning. Robotic screw placement allows for accurate screw placement with no increased rate of postoperative infection compared to historical controls. Level of evidence: IV, Retrospective review.

Revisiting the Value of Drains After Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: a Multi-institutional Analysis of 996 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative pelvic drains are often placed during low anterior resection (LAR) to evacuate postoperative fluid collections and identify/control potential anastomotic leaks. Our aim was to assess the validity of this practice. METHODS: Patients from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium (2007-2017) who underwent curative-intent LAR for a primary rectal cancer were included. Patients were categorized as receiving a closed suction drain intraoperatively or not. Primary outcomes were superficial surgical site infection (SSI), deep SSI, intraabdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, and need for secondary drain placement. Three subgroup analyses were conducted in patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, had a diverting loop ileostomy (DLI), and had low anastomoses < 6 cm from the anal verge. RESULTS: Of 996 patients 67% (n = 551) received a drain. Drain patients were more likely to be male (64 vs 54%), have a smoking history (25 vs 19%), have received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (73 vs 61%), have low tumors (56 vs 36%), and have received a DLI (80 vs 71%) (all p < 0.05). Drains were associated with an increased anastomotic leak rate (14 vs 8%, p = 0.041), although there was no difference in the need for a secondary drainage procedure to control the leak (82 vs 88%, p = 0.924). These findings persisted in all subset analyses. Drains were not associated with increased superficial SSI, deep SSI, or intraabdominal abscess in the entire cohort or each subset analysis. Reoperation (12 vs 10%, p = 0.478) and readmission rates (28 vs 31%, p = 0.511) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although not associated with increased infectious complications, intraoperatively placed pelvic drains after low anterior resection for rectal cancer are associated with an increase in anastomotic leak rate and no reduction in the need for secondary drain placement or reoperation. Routine drainage appears to be unnecessary.