Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Robotic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases in a "referral centre Hub&Spoke learning program". A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of perioperative outcomes

Background

Surgical resection is still considered the optimal treatment for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). Although laparoscopic and robotic surgery demonstrated their reliability especially in referral centers, the comparison between perioperative outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) and open (OLR) liver resection are still debated when performed in referral centers for robotic surgery, not dedicated to HPB. Our study aimed to verify the efficacy and safety of perioperative outcomes after RLR and OLR for CRLM in an HUB&Spoke learning program (H&S) between a high volume center for liver surgery and high volume center for robotic surgery.

Methods

We analyzed prospective databases of Pineta Grande Hospital (Castel Volturno) and Robotic Surgical Units (Foligno-Spoleto and Arezzo) from 2011 to 2021. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed according to baseline characteristics of patients, solitary/multiple CRLM, anterolateral/posterosuperior location.

Results

383 patients accepted to be part of the study (268 ORL and 115 RLR). After PSM, 45 patients from each group were included. Conversion rate was 8.89 %. RLR group had a significantly lower blood loss (226 vs. 321 ml; p=0.0001), and fewer major complications (13.33 % vs. 17.78 %; p=0.7722). R0 resection was obtained in 100% of OLR (vs.95.55%, p =0.4944. Hospital stay was 8.8 days in RLR (vs. 15; p=0.0001).Conclusion: H&S represents a safe and effective program to train general surgeons also in Hepatobiliary surgery providing R0 resection rate, blood loss volume and morbidity rate superimposable to referral centers. Furthermore, H&S allow a reduction of health mobility with consequent money saving for patients and institutions.

Comparative study of operative expenses: robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open liver resections at a university hospital in the UK

Robotic liver resections (RLR) are increasingly being performed and has previously been considered more costly. The aim is to explore the cost of RLR compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection in a single National Health Service (NHS) hospital. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RLR, LLR, and OLR from April 2014 to December 2022 was conducted. The primary outcomes were the cost of consumables and median income, and the secondary outcomes were the overall length of stay and mortality at 90 days. Overall, 332 patients underwent liver resections. There were 204 males (61.4%) and 128 females (38.6%), with a median age of 62 years (IQR: 51-77 years). Of these, 60 patients (18.1%) underwent RLR, 21 patients (6.3%) underwent LLR, and 251 patients (75.6%) underwent OLR. Median consumables cost per case was £3863 (IQR: £3458-£5061) for RLR, £4326 (IQR: £4273-£4473) for LLR, and £4,084 (IQR: £3799-£5549) for the OLR cohort (p = 0.140). Median income per case was £7999 (IQR: £4509-£10,777) for RLR, £7497 (IQR: £2407-£14,576) for LLR, and £7493 (IQR: £2542-£14,121) for OLR. The median length of stay (LOS) for RLR was 3 days (IQR: 2-4.7 days) compared to 5 days for LLR (IQR: 4.5-7 days) and 6 days for OLR (IQR: 5-8 days, p < 0.001). Within the NHS, RLR has consumable costs comparable to OLR and LLR. It is also linked with a shorter LOS and generates similar income for patients undergoing OLR and LLR.