Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched cost-analysis between robot-assisted surgery and direct manual laparoscopy.
Costs’ analysis
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy
Robotic distal pancreatectomy
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
12
10
2020
accepted:
13
01
2021
pubmed:
4
2
2021
medline:
3
3
2022
entrez:
3
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Few studies have reported a structured cost analysis of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), and none have compared the relative costs between the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the direct manual laparoscopy (DML) in this setting. The aim of the present study is to address this issue by comparing surgical outcomes and costs of RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP). Eighty-eight RDP and 47 LDP performed between January 2008 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Three comparable groups of 35 patients each (Si-RDP-group, Xi-RDP group, LDP-group) were obtained matching 1:1 the RDP-groups with the LDP-group. Overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVC) and fixed costs were compared using generalized linear regression model adjusting for covariates. The conversion rate was significantly lower in the Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group: 2.9% and 0%, respectively, versus 14.3% in the LDP-group (p = 0.045). Although not statistically significant, the mean operative time was lower in Xi-RDP-group: 226 min versus 262 min for Si-RDP-group and 247 min for LDP-group. The overall post-operative complications rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were not significantly different between the three groups. In LDP-group, the LOS of converted cases was significantly longer: 15.6 versus 9.8 days (p = 0.039). Overall costs of LDP-group were significantly lower than RDP-groups, (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis OVC resulted no longer statistically significantly different between LDP-group and Xi-RDP-group (p = 0.099), and between LDP-group and the RDP-groups when the spleen preservation was indicated (p = 0.115 and p = 0.261 for Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group, respectively). RAS is more expensive than DML for DP because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. The flattening of these differences considering only the variable costs, in a high-volume multidisciplinary center for RAS, suggests a possible optimization of the costs in this setting. RAS might be particularly indicated for minimally invasive DP when the spleen preservation is scheduled.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Few studies have reported a structured cost analysis of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), and none have compared the relative costs between the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the direct manual laparoscopy (DML) in this setting. The aim of the present study is to address this issue by comparing surgical outcomes and costs of RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP).
METHODS
Eighty-eight RDP and 47 LDP performed between January 2008 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Three comparable groups of 35 patients each (Si-RDP-group, Xi-RDP group, LDP-group) were obtained matching 1:1 the RDP-groups with the LDP-group. Overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVC) and fixed costs were compared using generalized linear regression model adjusting for covariates.
RESULTS
The conversion rate was significantly lower in the Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group: 2.9% and 0%, respectively, versus 14.3% in the LDP-group (p = 0.045). Although not statistically significant, the mean operative time was lower in Xi-RDP-group: 226 min versus 262 min for Si-RDP-group and 247 min for LDP-group. The overall post-operative complications rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were not significantly different between the three groups. In LDP-group, the LOS of converted cases was significantly longer: 15.6 versus 9.8 days (p = 0.039). Overall costs of LDP-group were significantly lower than RDP-groups, (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis OVC resulted no longer statistically significantly different between LDP-group and Xi-RDP-group (p = 0.099), and between LDP-group and the RDP-groups when the spleen preservation was indicated (p = 0.115 and p = 0.261 for Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
RAS is more expensive than DML for DP because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. The flattening of these differences considering only the variable costs, in a high-volume multidisciplinary center for RAS, suggests a possible optimization of the costs in this setting. RAS might be particularly indicated for minimally invasive DP when the spleen preservation is scheduled.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33534074
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08332-1
pii: 10.1007/s00464-021-08332-1
pmc: PMC8741657
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
651-662Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Surg Endosc. 2017 Feb;31(2):543-551
pubmed: 27317030
Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):584-591
pubmed: 28040257
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2003 Feb;13(1):33-6
pubmed: 12676019
Surg Endosc. 2012 Mar;26(3):598-606
pubmed: 21993935
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Sep;116(4):461-469
pubmed: 28628713
Am J Surg. 2015 Mar;209(3):557-63
pubmed: 25596756
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Feb;220(2):177-85
pubmed: 25529901
J Formos Med Assoc. 2019 Jan;118(1 Pt 2):268-278
pubmed: 29798819
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 May;45(5):719-727
pubmed: 30579652
Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2019 Jun;8(3):304-306
pubmed: 31245421
Surg Innov. 2020 Feb;27(1):11-18
pubmed: 31394981
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun;33(6):1858-1869
pubmed: 30251144
Ann Surg. 2012 Jun;255(6):1048-59
pubmed: 22511003
Surgery. 2010 Oct;148(4):814-23
pubmed: 20797748
BMC Surg. 2017 Nov 9;17(1):105
pubmed: 29121885
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010 Nov;17(6):813-23
pubmed: 20024588
HPB (Oxford). 2018 Dec;20(12):1172-1180
pubmed: 31217087
Surg Endosc. 2015 Nov;29(11):3163-70
pubmed: 25552231
Int J Med Robot. 2020 Apr;16(2):e2080
pubmed: 32026577
Surg Endosc. 2015 Dec;29(12):3507-18
pubmed: 25791063
Surgery. 2007 Nov;142(5):761-8
pubmed: 17981197
J Comp Eff Res. 2020 Feb;9(3):201-218
pubmed: 31975614
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 14;11(3):e0151189
pubmed: 26974961
Surg Endosc. 2018 Aug;32(8):3562-3569
pubmed: 29396754
J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1994 Jun;39(3):178-84
pubmed: 7932341
Arch Surg. 1988 May;123(5):550-3
pubmed: 3358679
Surg Endosc. 2021 Mar;35(3):1420-1428
pubmed: 32240383
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019 Jun;404(4):459-468
pubmed: 31055639
Surgery. 2007 Jul;142(1):20-5
pubmed: 17629996
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Ann Transl Med. 2020 Mar;8(5):188
pubmed: 32309335
J Minim Access Surg. 2020 Jan-Mar;16(1):66-70
pubmed: 30178768
Arch Surg. 2003 Jul;138(7):777-84
pubmed: 12860761
Ann Surg. 2020 Jan;271(1):1-14
pubmed: 31567509
Surg Endosc. 2012 Nov;26(11):3149-56
pubmed: 22580876