Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:212-221. [PMID: 23996335 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3163-5]

Cost-effectiveness of robotic compared with laparoscopic rectal resection. Results from the Spanish prospective national trial ROBOCOSTES

OBJECTIVE

The costs related to robotic surgery are known to be greater than those associated with laparoscopy. However, the potential for better outcomes of the former could lead to a cost-effectiveness advantage. The aim of this study is therefore to highlight the difference in cost-effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection.

METHODS

This is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). From 2022, for 1 year, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal resection were included. Quality-adjusted life year and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal resection and laparoscopic rectal resection . Secondary aims included clinical outcomes and quality of life.

RESULTS

Overall, 182 patients underwent rectal resection (152 anterior and 30 abdominoperineal excisions) at 14 centers, of whom 95 received robotic rectal resection and 87 laparoscopic rectal resection. Robotic rectal resection was associated with lesser blood loss (58.55 ± 51.68 vs 131.68 ± 191.92, P < .001), lower pain score at day 1 (-1.04 visual analog scale, P < .001) and day 7 (-0.81, P < .001) after surgery, and with fewer hospital readmissions (2.1% vs 15%, P = .005) compared with laparoscopic rectal resection. The overall costs of robotic rectal resection (including hospitalization) were 919.66 euros greater compared with laparoscopic rectal resection, but quality-adjusted life years in the robotic rectal resection group were better than laparoscopic approaches to rectal resection both at 30-day (0.8914 vs 0.8139) and 90-day (0.9573 vs 0.8740) follow-up. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was an 84.38% and 89.36% probability that robotic rectal resection was more cost-effective than laparoscopic rectal resection.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that robotic rectal resection, even if associated with greater direct costs in the short term, outperforms laparoscopic rectal resection in terms of quality-adjusted life years and should therefore be preferred where available.

Comparison of erector spinae plane block and transverse abdominis plane block in postoperative recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients experience significant postoperative pain after laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) provides effective analgesia, and recent studies have also shown that erector spinae plane block (ESPB) can be used for postoperative analgesia in abdominal surgery. However, there is a lack of comparison between the two methods regarding recovery quality following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Sixty patients scheduled for laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive either a ESPB with TAPB (n = 30). Both groups received a single injection of 20 mL of 0.25% ropivacaine bilaterally. The primary outcome was the quality of recovery (QoR) at 24 h postoperatively, using the quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) scale. Secondary outcomes included the QoR at 48 h postoperatively, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores during the first 48 h postoperatively in both resting and active states, requirements for rescue analgesia, cumulative postoperative opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), time to first flatus and ambulation, the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

At 24 h postoperatively, the QoR-15 score (mean ± standard deviation) was significantly higher in the ESPB group (109.2 ± 8.7) compared to the TAPB group (101 ± 10.1) (p = 0.001). Similarly, at 48 h postoperatively, the QoR-15 score remained higher in the ESPB group (118.5 ± 8.8) than in the TAPB group (113.8 ± 8.1) (p = 0.035). Patients in the ESPB group reported lower visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores during the first 24 h postoperatively (all p < 0.05) compared to those in the TAPB group. The sufentanil consumption median (interquartile range) in the ESPB group at 24 h postoperatively was lower (62, 61-65 μg) compared to the TAPB group (66, 63-70 μg) (p < 0.001). Hospital stay median was 7 (6-9) days for the ESPB group and 8 (7-10) days for the TAPB group (p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received ESPB showed better recovery quality, improved analgesic effects, and higher postoperative satisfaction compared to those who underwent preoperative TAPB.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2400081157); date of registration: February 24, 2024. The first participant was enrolled on February 27, 2024.

[Robotic vs. laparoscopic right hemicolectomy-An analysis of costs]

The use of robotic surgical methods for performing right-sided hemicolectomy has been somewhat controversial, primarily due to concerns related to costs. The purpose of this study is to document the initial robotic right hemicolectomies conducted at our institution and to compare them with a laparoscopic reference group. A significant focus of this study is the detailed analysis of the costs associated with both techniques within the German healthcare system.Surgical and cost-related data for 34 cases each for robotic and laparoscopic right-sided hemicolectomy performed at Nürnberg Hospital were compared. This comparison was conducted through a retrospective single-center case-matched analysis. Cost analysis was carried out following the current guidelines provided by the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) of Germany.The average age of the patient cohort was 70 years, with a male patient proportion of 57.4%. Analysis of perioperative parameters indicated similar outcomes for both surgical techniques. Regarding the incidence of complications of Clavien-Dindo stages III-V (8.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.48), a positive trend towards robotic surgery was observed. The cost analysis showed nearly identical total costs for the selected cases in both groups (mean €13,423 vs. €13,424; p = 1.00), with the most significant cost difference noted in surgical (operative) costs (€5,779 vs. €3,521; p < 0.01). The lower costs for laparoscopic cases were primarily due to the reduced material costs (mean €2,657 vs. €702; p < 0.05).In conclusion, both surgical approaches are clinically equivalent, with only minor differences in the total case costs.

Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, while in some respects equivalent or even preferable to open surgery, is challenged in specific conditions where the tumor is located in the middle and lower third of the rectum. Robotic surgery equipped with a superior arm of machinery and gained better visualization can compensate for the deficiency of the laparoscopic approach. This study adopted a propensity matched analysis to compare the functional and oncological short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent proctectomy have been collected prospectively between December 2019 and November 2022. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity matching analysis. A detailed collection of post-operative examination indicators was performed, while the K-M survival curves were plotted to analyze post-operative oncology outcomes. The LARS scale was designed to evaluate the anal function of patients in the form of questionnaires. Totally, 215 patients underwent robotic operations while 1011 patients selected laparoscopic operations. Patients matched 1∶1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, 210 cases were included in each group. All patients underwent a follow-up for a median period of 18.3 months. Robotic surgery was connected with an enhanced recovery including the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.050), the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.040), lower incidence of urinary retention (P = 0.043), better anal function 1 month after LAR without ileostomy (P < 0.001), longer operative time (\P = 0.042), compared with laparoscopic operations. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery could be recognized as an effective technique with identical short-term outcomes of oncology and better anal function in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. However, multi-center studies with larger samples are expected to validate the long-term outcomes of robotic surgery.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres

Background

Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview.

Method

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis.

Results

In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Index cost comparison of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery in colon and rectal cancer resection: a retrospective financial investigation of surgical methodology innovation at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted colorectal cancer resection (R-CR) has become increasingly commonplace in contrast to traditional laparoscopic cancer resection (L-CR). The aim of this study was to compare the total direct costs of R-CR to that of L-CR and to compare the groups with respect to costs related to LOS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colon and/or rectal cancer resection via R-CR or L-CR instrumentation between January 1, 2015 and December 31 2018, at our institution, were evaluated and compared. Primary outcomes were overall cost, supply cost, operating time and cost, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and postoperative LOS cost. Secondary outcomes were readmission within 30 days and mortality during the surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty R-CR (mean age 64.9 ± 12.4 years) and 258 L-CR (mean age 66.4 ± 15.5 years) patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean direct cost between R-CR and L-CR was significantly higher ($8756 vs $7776 respectively, p=0.001) as well as the supply cost per case ($3789 vs $2122, p < 0.001). Operating time was also higher for R-CR than L-CR (224 min vs 187 min, p = 0.066) but LOS was slightly lower (5.08 days vs 5.55 days, p = 0.113).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost is the main obstacle to easy and widespread use of the platform at this junction, though new developments and competition could very well reduce costs. Supply cost was the main reason for increased costs with robotic resection.

Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES)

BACKGROUND

The studies which address the impact of costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic approach on quality of life (cost-effectiveness studies) are scares in general surgery.

METHODS

The Spanish national study on cost-effectiveness differences among robotic and laparoscopic surgery (ROBOCOSTES) is designed as a prospective, multicentre, national, observational study. The aim is to determine in which procedures robotic surgery is more cost-effective than laparoscopic surgery. Several surgical operations and patient populations will be evaluated (distal pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, inguinal hernioplasty, rectal resection for cancer, Heller cardiomiotomy and Nissen procedure).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will demonstrate which treatment (laparoscopic or robotic) and in which population is more cost-effective. This study will also assess the impact of previous surgical experience on main outcomes.

Cost comparisons of endoscopic and surgical resection of stage T1 rectal cancer

Background and study aims  Management of T1 rectal cancer is complex and includes several resection methods, making cost comparisons challenging. The aim of this study was to compare costs of endoscopic and surgical resection and to investigate hypothetical cost scenarios for the treatment of T1 rectal cancer. Patients and methods  Retrospective population-based cost minimization study on prospectively collected data on T1 rectal cancer patients treated using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), open, laparoscopic, or robotic resection, in Skåne County, Sweden (2011-2017). The hypothetical cost scenarios were based on the distribution of high-risk features of lymph node metastases in a national cohort (2009-2017). Results  Eighty-five patients with T1 RC undergoing ESD (n = 16), TEM (n = 17), open (n = 35), laparoscopic (n = 9), and robotic (n = 8) resection were included. ESD had a total 1-year cost of 5165 € and was significantly ( P  < 0.05) less expensive compared to TEM (14871€), open (21 453 €), laparoscopic (22 488 €) and robotic resection (26 562 €). Risk factors for lymph node metastases were seen in 68 % of 779 cases of T1 rectal cancers included in the national cohort. The hypothetical scenario of performing ESD on all T1 RC had the lowest total 1-year per patient cost compared to all other alternatives. Conclusions  This is the first study analyzing total 1-year costs of endoscopic and surgical methods to resect T1 rectal cancer, which showed that the cost of ESD was significantly lower compared to TEM and surgical resection. In fact, based on hypothetical cost scenarios, ESD is still justifiable from a cost perspective even when all high-risk cases are followed by surgery in accordance to guidelines.

Augmented Reality: Moving Robotics Forward

Compared with other fields, adoption of robotics in colorectal surgery remains relatively slow. One of the reasons for this is that the expected benefits of robotics, such as greater accuracy, speed, and better patient outcomes, are not born out in evidence comparing use of robotics for colorectal procedures to conventional laparoscopy. But evidence also suggests that outcomes with colorectal robotic procedures depend on the experience of the surgeon, suggesting that a steep learning curve is acting as a barrier to the benefits of robotics being realized. In this paper, we analyze exactly why surgeon skill and proficiency is such a critical factor in colorectal surgery, especially around the most complex procedures associated with cancer. Shortening of the learning curve is crucial for both the adoption of the technique and the efficient use of expert trainers. Looking beyond the basics of training and embracing a new generation of digital learning technologies that facilitate peer-to-peer collaboration and development beyond the confines of individual institutions may be an important contributor to achieve these goals in the future.

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has been touted as a possible way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and has shown promise in rectal resections, thus shifting traditional open surgeons to a minimally invasive approach. The safety, efficacy, and learning curve have been established for most colorectal applications. With this and a robust sales and marketing model, utilization of the robot for colorectal surgery continues to grow steadily. However, this disruptive technology still requires standards for training, privileging and credentialing, and safe implementation into clinical practice.

Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

Comparison of outcome and costs of robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomies

To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing right hemicolectomy using laparoscopic or robotic approaches and perform a cost analysis. Retrospective review of all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomies at a public and private hospital in NSW/QLD from January 2015 to June 2018. Cost analysis was calculated using actual and estimated costs by the local health district. A total of 101 patients were identified. 59 (58%) had Robotic resection, of which 44 (75%) had an intra-corporeal anastomosis. There were no demographic or oncological differences between the two groups. The robotic group had a significantly earlier time to bowels opening (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (3 vs 5 days, p < 0.001). The robotic group had a lower rate of ileus (2% vs 14%, p = 0.02) and complications (5% vs 33%, p = 0.006). The mean lymph node harvest was higher in the robotic group (18 vs 14, p = 0.001). The operative time was longer in the robotic group (110 vs 97 min, p = 0.021). The total instrument costs of robotic surgery were A$2565.37 compared with $1507.50 for laparoscopic surgery. The cost of bed days was A$1167.00/day. The average difference in cost of care was calculated as A$1276.13 and A$464.43 less in the robotic with intra-corporeal and extra-corporeal anastomosis, respectively. Patients have significantly faster return to bowel function and shorter length of stay after Robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and experience fewer complications. This difference in length of stay may make robotic right hemicolectomies more cost effective.

Education and Training in Transanal Endoscopic Surgery and Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

There is a paradigm shift in surgical training, and new tool and technology are being used to facilitate mastery of the content and technical skills. The transanal procedures for rectal cancer-transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)-have a distinct learning curve for competence in the procedures, and require special training for familiarity with the "bottom-up" anatomy, procedural risks, and managing complex cases. These procedures have been models for structured education and training, using multimodal tools, to ensure safe implementation of TES and TaTME into clinical practice. The goal of this work was to review the current state of surgical education, the introduction and learning curve of the TES and TaTME procedures, and the established and future models for education of the transanal procedures for rectal cancer.

Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection

The use of robotics in colorectal surgery has been steadily increasing, however, reported longer operative times and increased cost has limited its widespread adoption. We investigated the cost of elective colorectal surgery based on type of anatomic resection and the impact of a standardized protocol for robotic colectomies. A retrospective review was conducted of 279 elective colectomies at a single institution between 2013 and 2017. Clinical outcomes and detailed cost data were compared based on open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgical approach and stratified by anatomic resection. Robotic, laparoscopic and open colectomy rates were 35, 34 and 31%, respectively. While total costs were similar in robotic and laparoscopic surgery, anatomic resection stratification showed that low anterior resection (LAR) was significantly cheaper ($14,093 vs $17,314). When a standardized surgical protocol was implemented for robotic colectomies, significant reductions in operative times, length of stay, total cost, and operative cost were observed. Robotic surgery may be most cost effective for elective LAR compared to laparoscopic or open approaches. A standardized surgical protocol for robotic surgery may help reduce costs by reducing operative times, operating rooms expenditure, and lengths of stay.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: Short-term outcomes at a single center

Background

The robotic technique has been established as an alternative approach to laparoscopy for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer.

Methods

The cases of robot-assisted or laparoscopic colorectal resection were collected retrospectively between July 2015 and September 2018. We evaluated patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and pathologic examinations. Short-term outcomes included time to passage of flatus and length of postoperative hospital stay.

Results

A total of 580 patients were included in the study. There were 271 patients in the robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) group and 309 in the laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) group. The time to passage of flatus in the RCS group was 3.62 days shorter than the LCS group. The total costs were increased by 2,258.8 USD in the RCS group compared to the LCS group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The present study suggests that colorectal cancer robotic surgery was more beneficial to patients because of a shorter postoperative recovery time of bowel function and shorter hospital stays.

Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of colorectal cancer has led to a renewed focus on how certain factors, such as insurance status, impact the equitable distribution of both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Our goal was to analyze surgical wait times between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches, and to determine whether insurance status impacts timely access to treatment.

METHODS

After IRB approval, adult patients from the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were identified (2010-2016). Patients who underwent radiation therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had wait times of 0 days from diagnosis to surgery, or had metastatic disease were excluded. Primary outcomes were days from cancer diagnosis to surgery and days from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 324,784 patients, 5.9% underwent robotic, 47.5% laparoscopic, and 46.7% open surgery. Patients undergoing robotic surgery incurred the longest wait times from diagnosis to surgery (29.5 days [robotic] vs. 21.7 [laparoscopic] vs. 17.2 [open], p < 0.001), but the shortest wait times from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (48.9 days [robotic] vs. 49.9 [laparoscopic] vs. 54.8 [open], p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was associated with a 1.46 × longer wait time to surgery (IRR 1.462, 95% CI 1.458-1.467, p < 0.001), but decreased wait time to adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.909, 95% CI 0.905-0.913, p < 0.001) compared to an open approach. Private insurance was associated with decreased wait times to surgery (IRR 0.966, 95% CI 0.962-0.969, p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.862, 95% CI 0.858-0.865, p < 0.001) compared to Medicaid.

CONCLUSION

Though patients undergoing robotic surgery experienced delays from diagnosis to surgery, they tended to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy sooner compared to those undergoing open or laparoscopic approaches. Private insurance was independently associated not only with access to robotic surgery, but also shorter wait times during all stages of treatment.

Robotic sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery: A learning curve analysis

BACKGROUND

Longer operation time is one of the major obstacles in front of the proposed benefits of robotic rectal surgery. We intended to evaluate the learning process for robotic surgery in sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. The variable evaluated for learning curve calculation was the operative time.

RESULTS

The learning curve was divided into two phases: initial 52 operations comprised phase 1 and the following 44 operations represented phase 2. Interphase comparisons showed that phase 2 patients had shorter operation times (323.3 ± 102.8 vs. 379.9 ± 108.7 min, p = 0.011), less blood loss (37.2 ± 51.0 vs. 87.7 ± 124.8 mL, p = 0.009), longer distal resection margins (4.5 ± 4.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.7 cm, p = 0.008), and higher rates of grade 3 mesorectal completeness (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we saw that the cut-off level in the learning curve of a laparoscopically experienced surgeon could be beyond the numbers reported in the literature.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

The differences between the costs of robotic rectal resection and of the laparoscopic approach are still not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

We conducted an observational, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study on patients having laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection between February 2014 and March 2018 at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). The primary endpoint was to compare cost effectiveness in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY was used as a threshold to determine the most cost-effective treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 81 RRR and 104 LRR were included. The mean operative costs were higher for RRR (4307.09€ versus 3834.58€; p = 0.04), although mean overall costs were similar (7272.03€ for RRR and 6968.63€ for the LLR; p = 0.44). Mean QALYs at 1 year for the RRR group (0.8482) was higher than that associated with LRR (0.6532) (p = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ there was a 95.54% and 97.18% probability, respectively, that RRR was more cost-effective than LRR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data regarding the cost-effectiveness of RRR versus LRR shows a benefit for RRR.

Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies that compare the cost and outcome of robotic-assisted surgery to open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer treatment. We aimed to compare the three surgical modalities for colon cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study using the population-based Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for enrollment. We compared in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost for patients undergoing one of these three procedures using a multivariate adjusted logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 531,536 patients undergoing surgical treatment for colon cancer during the study period, 348,645 (65.6%) patients underwent open surgeries, 174,748 (32.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, and 8143 (1.5%) underwent robotic surgeries. In-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, wound complications, general medical complications, general surgical complications, and costs of the three surgical treatment modalities. Compared to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery, patients undergoing open surgery had a higher mortality rate (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.61-3.40), more general medical complications (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.67-1.87), a longer length of hospital stay (6.60 vs. 4.36 days), and higher total cost ($18,541 vs. $14,487) in the propensity score matched cohort. Mortality rate and general medical complications were equivalent in the laparoscopic and robotic surgery groups, but the median cost was lower in the laparoscopic group ($14641 vs. $16,628 USD).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery was associated with a favourable short-term outcome and lower cost compared with open surgery. Robot-assisted surgery had comparable outcomes but higher cost as compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis

In the last decade, there have clearly been important changes in the surgical approach of gastric cancer treatment due to an increased interest in the minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS). The higher cost of robotic surgery procedures remains an important issue of debate. The objective of the study is to compare the main operative and clinical outcomes and to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the two techniques. This is a prospective cost-effectiveness and clinical study when comparing the robotic gastrectomy (RG) technique with open gastrectomy (OG) in gastric cancer. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The incremental utility was 0.038 QALYs and the estimated ICER for patients was dominated by robotic approach. The probability that the robotic approach was cost effective was 94.04% and 94.20%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY gained. RG for gastric cancer represents a cost-effective procedure compared with the standard OG.

Short-term efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy via Huang's three-step maneuver for advanced upper gastric cancer: Results from a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been considered to be significantly better than laparoscopic surgery for complicated procedures.

AIM

To explore the short-term effect of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (SPSHL) for advanced gastric cancer (GC) by Huang's three-step maneuver.

METHODS

A total of 643 patients who underwent SPSHL were recruited from April 2012 to July 2017, including 35 patients who underwent robotic SPSHL (RSPSHL) and 608 who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL (LSPSHL). One-to-four propensity score matching was used to analyze the differences in clinical data between patients who underwent robotic SPSHL and those who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL.

RESULTS

In all, 175 patients were matched, including 35 patients who underwent RSPSHL and 140 who underwent LSPSHL. After matching, there were no significant differences detected in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Significant differences in total operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), splenic hilar blood loss (SHBL), splenic hilar dissection time (SHDT), and splenic trunk dissection time were evident between these groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the overall noncompliance rate of lymph node (LN) dissection (62.9% vs 60%, P = 0.757), number of retrieved No. 10 LNs (3.1 ± 1.4 vs 3.3 ± 2.5, P = 0.650), total number of examined LNs (37.8 ± 13.1 vs 40.6 ± 13.6, P = 0.274), and postoperative complications (14.3% vs 17.9%, P = 0.616). A stratified analysis that divided the patients receiving RSPSHL into an early group (EG) and a late group (LG) revealed that the LG experienced obvious improvements in SHDT and length of stay compared with the EG (P < 0.05). Logistic regression showed that robotic surgery was a significantly protective factor against both SHBL and SHDT (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RSPSHL is safe and feasible, especially after overcoming the early learning curve, as this procedure results in a radical curative effect equivalent to that of LSPSHL.

Comparison of Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic-Assisted Colon Cancer Surgery Using a Joystick-Guided Endoscope Holder (Soloassist II) or a Human Assistant

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Soloassist II-assisted (SA) group and in the human-assisted (HA) group.

Methods

A total of 76 patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy and anterior resection performed by a single surgeon between January 2017 and May 2018 were recruited from the consecutively enrolled registry and retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Of 76 patients, 43 underwent surgery with human assistance and 33 underwent surgery using the Soloassist II system. The clinicopathologic characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 groups. In both HA and SA groups, no statistical difference was observed between operation time (220.23 ± 47.83 minutes vs. 218.03 ± 38.22 minutes, P = 0.829), total number of harvested lymph nodes (20.42 ± 10.86 vs. 20.24 ± 8.21, P = 0.938), and other parameters of short-term outcomes (length of hospital stay, blood loss, open conversion, time to flatus, time to soft diet, and complication events). Subgroup analyses did not show statistical differences.

Conclusion

Soloassist II can reduce the participation of a human assistant during surgery and is not inferior to human assistance in laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery. Thus, it is a feasible instrument in laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery that can provide positive short-term outcomes.

A Population-Based Study of 90-Day Hospital Cost and Utilization Associated With Robotic Surgery in Colon and Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer remains contentious with most data arising from small, single-institution studies.

METHODS

Stage I-III colorectal cancer resections from 2008 to 2014 were identified in New York State. Propensity score-adjusted negative binomial models were used to compare cost and utilization between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections.

RESULTS

A total of 12,218 patients were identified. For colectomy, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 3%, and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 13%. For rectal resection, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 7% and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 32%. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in cost across the surgical approaches, both in overall and stratified analyses. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with decreased 90-d hospital utilization compared with open surgery in intention-to-treat analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections were not associated with a hospital cost benefit after 90 d compared with open but were associated with decreased hospital utilization. Conversion to open resection was common, and efforts should be made to prevent them. Future research should continue to measure how robotic and laparoscopic approaches can add value to the health care system.

Safe surgery in the elderly: A review of outcomes following robotic proctectomy from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a cross-sectional study

Background

As our nation's population ages, operating on older and sicker patients occurs more frequently. Robotic operations have been thought to bridge the gap between a laparoscopic and an open approach, especially in more complex cases like proctectomy.

Methods

Our objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed. All cases were restricted to age 70 years old or greater.

Results

We identified 6740 admissions for rectal cancer including: 5879 open, 666 laparoscopic, and 195 robotic procedures. The median age was 77 years old. The incidence of a robotic proctectomy increased by 39%, while the open approach declined by 6% over the time period studied. Median (interquartile range) length of stay was shorter for robotic procedures at 4.3 (3-7) days, compared to laparoscopic 5.8 (4-8) and open at 6.7 (5-10) days (p < 0.01), while median total hospital charges were greater in the robotic group compared to laparoscopic and open cases ($64,743 vs. $55,813 vs. $50,355, respectively, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the risk of total complications between the different approaches following multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Robotic proctectomy was associated with a shorter LOS, and this may act as a surrogate marker for an overall improvement in adverse events. These results demonstrate that a robotic approach is a safe and feasible option, and should not be discounted solely based on age or comorbidities.

Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy (RAC) with those for conventional laparoscopy-assisted right surgery (LAC) for treating right-sided colon cancer.

BACKGROUND

The enthusiasm for the robotic techniques has gained increasing interest in colorectal malignancies. However, the role of robotic surgery in the oncologic safety has not yet been defined.

METHODS

From September 2009 to July 2011, 71 patients with right-sided colonic cancer were randomized in the study. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were similar in both groups. The primary and secondary endpoints of the study were hospital stay and survival, respectively. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The RAC and LAC groups did not differ significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. Compared with the LAC group, RAC was associated with longer operation times (195 min vs. 129 min, P < 0.001) and higher cost ($12,235 vs. $10,319, P = 0.013). The median follow-up was 49.23 months (interquartile range 40.63-56.20). The combined 5-year disease-free rate for all tumor stages was 77.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.6-92.1%) in the RAC group and 83.6% (95% CI 72.1-0.97.0%) in the LAC group (P = 0.442). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for all stages were 91.1% (95% CI 78.8-100%) in the RAC group and 91.0% (95% CI 81.3-100%) in the LAC group (P = 0.678). Using multivariate analysis, RAC was not a predictor of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

RAC appears to similar long-term survival as compared with LAC. However, we did not observe any clinical benefits of RAC which could translate to a decrease in expenditures.

TRIAL REGISTRY

http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00470951.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery in Elderly Patients: A Propensity Score Match Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer remains controversial. The study aimed to compare the operative, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes of robotic (robotic colorectal resection surgery [RCRS]) versus laparoscopic colorectal resection surgery (LCRS) in elderly patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare patients aged 70 years and more undergoing elective RCRS or LCRS for colorectal cancer between 2010 and 2017.

RESULTS

Overall, 160 patients underwent elective curative LCRS (n = 102) or RCRS (n = 58) for colorectal cancer. Before PSM, the mean preoperative Charlson score and the tumor size were significantly lower in the robotic group. After matching, 43 RCRSs were compared with 43 LCRSs. The RCRS group showed longer operative times (300.6 versus 214.5 min, P = .03) compared with LCRS, but all other operative variables were comparable between the two groups. No differences were found for postoperative morbidity, mortality, time to flatus, return to regular diet, and length of hospital stay. R0 resection was obtained in 95.3% of procedures. The overall and disease-free survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years were similar between RCRS and LCRS patients. The presence of more than one comorbidity before surgery was significantly associated with the incidence of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

In patients aged 70 years or more, robotic colorectal surgery showed operative and oncologic outcomes similar to those obtained by laparoscopy, despite longer operative times. Randomized trials are awaited to reliably assess the clinical and oncological noninferiority and the costs/benefits ratio of robotic colorectal surgery in elderly populations.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive right colectomy: A multi-center propensity score-matched comparison of outcomes

Background

The primary objective of this study was to retrospectively compare short-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomies for benign and malignant disease. Recent studies suggest potential short-term outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique.

Methods

This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis techniques for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy between January 11, 2010, and July 21, 2016.

Results

After propensity score-matching, there were a total of 1029 minimal invasive surgery cases for analysis—379 right colectomies (335 robotic-assisted and 44 laparoscopic) done with an intracorporeal anastomosis and 650 right colectomies (253 robotic-assisted and 397 laparoscopic) done with an extracorporeal anastomosis. There were no significant differences in any preoperative patient characteristics between groups. The minimally invasive intracorporeal anastomosis group had significantly longer operative times (p<0.0001), lower conversion to open rate (p = 0.01), shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02) and lower complication rate from after discharge to 30-days (p = 0.04) than the extracorporeal anastomosis group.

Conclusions

This comparison shows several clinical outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique in minimally invasive right colectomy. These data may guide future refinements in minimally invasive training techniques and help surgeons choose among different minimally invasive options.

Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Several types of robotic scope holders have been developed to date, but there are only some experimental reports or the results of small clinical cases. The Soloassist® system is a unique robotic scope holder with which the surgeon can control the field of view by a joystick. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated operative time, blood loss, setup time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in 273 laparoscopic colorectal resections, including 130 cases with human assistant (HA group) and 143 cases with Soloassist (SA group). Additionally, we also used logistic regression of the perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

RESULTS

The number of participating surgeons was apparently less in the SA group (HA group: 3.3 vs. SA group: 2.5, p < 0.01). The average operative time was shorter in the SA group, but there was no statistical difference (HA group: 287.0 min vs. SA group: 268.5 min, p = 0.07). No significant difference was found in setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay. There was no conversion case to human scope assistant and no system-specific adverse event. Similar results were observed between two groups after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal resection with Soloassist is safe and feasible. The present study demonstrated that Soloassist system provided the possibilities of saving human resources in laparoscopic colorectal resection without prolonged operative time or system-specific morbidity. Soloassist is an effective robot-assisted surgical instrument for colorectal surgery.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer

Aim. The robotic technique has been established as an alternative approach to laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer. Methods. The cases of robot-assisted or laparoscopic colorectal resection were collected retrospectively between July 2015 and October 2017. We evaluated patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and pathologic examination. A multivariable linear regression model was used to assess short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes included time to passage of flatus and postoperative hospital stay. Results. A total of 284 patients were included in the study. There were 104 patients in the robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) group and 180 in the laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) group. The mean age was 60.5 ± 10.8 years, and 62.0% of the patients were male. We controlled for confounding factors, and then the multiple linear model regression indicated that the time to passage of flatus in the RCS group was 3.45 days shorter than the LCS group (coefficient = −3.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −5.19 to −1.71; P < .001). Additionally, the drainage of tube duration (coefficient = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.3 to 0.87; P < .001) and transfers to the intensive care unit (coefficient = 7.34, 95% CI = 3.17 to 11.5; P = .001) influenced the postoperative hospital stay. The total costs increased by 15501.48 CNY in the RCS group compared with the LCS group ( P = .008). Conclusions. The present study suggests that colorectal cancer robotic surgery was more beneficial to patients because of shorter postoperative recovery time of bowel function and shorter hospital stays.

A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, whether RAG provides any significant outcome/cost advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for the experienced laparoscopist remains unclear.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identified 768 consecutive patients who underwent either RAG (n = 103) or LAG (n = 667) for GC between July 2016 and June 2017 at a large center. A 1:3 matched propensity score analysis was performed. The short-term outcomes and hospital costs between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A well-balanced cohort of 404 patients was analyzed (RAG:LAG = 1:3 match). The mean operation times were 226.6 ± 36.2 min for the RAG group and 181.8 ± 49.8 min for the LAG group (p < 0.001). The total numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar in the RAG and LAG groups (means 38 and 40, respectively, p = 0.115). The overall and major complication rates (RAG, 13.9% vs. LAG, 12.5%, p = 0.732 and RAG, 3.0% vs. LAG, 1.3%, p = 0.373, respectively) were similar. RAG was much more costly than LAG (1.3 times, p < 0.001) mainly due to the amortization and consumables of the robotic system. According to cumulative sum (CUSUM), the learning phases were divided as follows: phase 1 (cases 1-21), phase 2 (cases 22-63), and phase 3 (cases 64-101), in the robotic group. The surgical stress (SS) was higher in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group in phase 1 (p < 0.05). However, the SS did not differ significantly between the two groups in phase 3.

CONCLUSIONS

RAG is a feasible and safe surgical procedure for GC, especially in the post-learning curve period. However, further studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes and to elucidate whether RAG is cost-effective when compared to LAG.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes After Robotic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection

PURPOSE

The study aims to evaluate the clinical and financial outcomes of the use of robotic when compared to laparoscopic colorectal surgery and any changes in these over time.

METHODS

From the Premier Perspective database, patients who underwent elective laparoscopic and robotic colorectal resections from 2012 to 2014 were included. Laparoscopic colorectal resections were propensity score matched to robotic cases for patient, disease, procedure, surgeon specialty, and hospital type and volume. The two groups were compared for conversion, hospital stay, 30-day post-discharge readmission, mortality, and complications. Direct, cumulative, and total (including 30-day post-discharge) costs were evaluated. Clinical and financial outcomes were also separately assessed for each of the included years.

RESULTS

Of 36,701 patients, 32,783 (89.3%) had laparoscopic colorectal resection and 3918 (10.7%) had robotic colorectal resection; 4438 procedures (2219 in each group) were propensity score matched. For the entire period, conversion to open approach (4.7 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.1) and hospital stay (mean days [SD] 6 [5.3] vs. 5 [4.6], p = 0.2) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Surgical and medical complications were also the same for the two groups. However, the robotic approach was associated with lower readmission (6.3 vs. 4.8%, p = 0.04). Wound or abdominal infection (4.7 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.01) and respiratory complications (7.4 vs. 4.7%, p = 0.02) were significantly lower for the robotic group in the final year of inclusion, 2014. Direct, cumulative, and total (including 30-day post-discharge) costs were significantly higher for robotic surgery. The difference in costs between the two approaches reduced over time (direct cost difference: 2012, $2698 vs. 2013, $2235 vs. 2014, $1402).

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery can be performed with comparable clinical outcomes to laparoscopy. With greater use of the technology, some further recovery benefits may be evident. The robotic approach is more expensive but cost differences have been diminishing over time.

The Effect of Formal Robotic Residency Training on the Adoption of Minimally Invasive Surgery by Young Colorectal Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

The minimally invasive approach to colorectal surgery is still underused. Only 50% to 60% of colectomies and 10% to 20% of rectal resections for cancer are performed laparoscopically. The increasing adoption of the robotic platform for colorectal surgery warrants re-evaluation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training techniques. Although considering lessons learned from past laparoscopic training, a standardized national robotic training program for colon and rectal surgery residents was developed and implemented in 2011. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of this program on the usage of MIS in practice following residency training.

DESIGN

An internet-based 18 question survey was sent to all colon and rectal surgeons who graduated from ACGME-approved colon and rectal surgery residencies from 2013 to 2016. The survey questions were designed to determine MIS practice patterns for young colon and rectal surgeons after residency training for those who participated in the standardized national robotics training course when compared to those who did not participate. Grouped bar charts with error bars are presented along with summary statistics to offer a descriptive overview of training experiences by cohort.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

This study is a survey of colon and rectal surgeons who completed colon and rectal surgery residencies to include all 52 programs across the United States.

RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 37.2% (109 of 293). Most (79.8%) of the colon and rectal surgery resident respondents participated in the formal robotic training course. The average respondent reported that 84% of colectomy cases and 74.8% of rectal resections done after residency training by all respondents were by the MIS approach. The laparoscopic approach was most prevalent for colectomies for both course participants (laparoscopic 55.1%, hand assisted lap 14.5%, and robotic 15.7%) and nonparticipants (laparoscopic 53.8%, hand assisted lap 12.3%, and robotic 15.9%). For rectal resections, the robotic approach was the preferred option for course participants (laparoscopic 24.5%, hand assist lap 14.0%, and robotic 39.2%) whereas laparoscopic and open approaches were used more often by nonparticipants (laparoscopic 36.8%, hand assist lap 8.0%, robotic 26.8%, and open 28.4%). Barriers to robotic implementation included lack of robotic mentors, inadequate robotic assistance, and the preference for the laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSION

The usage of MIS by young recently fellowship-trained colorectal surgeons is higher than previously reported. The proportion of rectal cases done robotically is higher compared to colon cases and with an apparent decrease in open rather than laparoscopic surgery, suggesting selective usage of robotic surgery for more challenging cases in the pelvis. Methods to more effectively increase the usage of minimally invasive approaches in colorectal surgery warrant further evaluation.

Feasibility and Usefulness of a Joystick-Guided Robotic Scope Holder (Soloassist) in Laparoscopic Surgery

Introduction

The Soloassist® system is a joystick-guided robotic scope holder. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

We investigated operative time, blood loss, set-up time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in laparoscopic cholecystectomy cases before and after the introduction of Soloassist. Furthermore, we evaluated these factors in each group of 20 elective and emergency cholecystectomy cases by single surgeon after matching their background. To evaluate the performance level of operating Soloassist, we divided the operative field into three areas. Then we counted the frequency of energy device activation in initially 10 cases by a single surgical resident and observed its change.

Results

The number of participating surgeons was significantly less and postoperative hospital days were fewer in the Soloassist group. There was no significant difference between set-up time and blood loss both in elective and emergency cases. The total number of energy device activations and that in the dangerous area decreased in accordance with the experience.

Conclusion

Considering our results and previous reports, the combination use of an ideal active scope holder and a commercially available 3D scope is currently considered the best approach in laparoscopic surgery. In the near future, development of active scope holders might play an important role in laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

METHODS

Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

RESULTS

Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal surgery in high-risk patients

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal surgery is associated with a steep learning curve and high conversion rate despite progress in equipment design and consistent practice. The robotic system has shown an advantage over the laparoscopic approach due to stable three-dimensional views, improved dexterity and better ergonomics. These factors make the robotic approach more favourable for rectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery in high-risk patients.

METHOD

A prospectively collected dataset for high-risk patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery between May 2013 and November 2015 was analysed. Patients with any of the following characteristics were defined as high risk: a body mass index ≥30, male gender, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumour <8 cm from the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 184 high-risk patients were identified: 99 in the robotic group and 85 in the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly higher sphincter preservation rate (86% vs 74%, P = 0.045), shorter operative time (240 vs 270 min, P = 0.013) and hospital stay (7 vs 9 days, P = 0.001), less blood loss (10 vs 100 ml, P < 0.001) and a smaller conversion rate to open surgery (0% vs 5%, P = 0.043) compared with the laparoscopic technique. Reoperation, anastomotic leak rate, 30-day mortality and oncological outcomes were comparable between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery in high-risk patients is associated with higher sphincter preservation, reduced blood loss, smaller conversion rates, and shorter operating time and hospital stay. However, further studies are required to evaluate this notion.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs

PURPOSE

The costs involved in performing robotic surgery present a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. The aims of this study are to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer and to conduct a literature review of the cost analysis.

METHODS

This is an observational, comparative study whereby data were abstracted from a retrospective database of patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection from October 2010 to March 2017, at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. An independent company performed the financial analysis, and fixed costs were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 86 robotic and 112 laparoscopic rectal resections were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the laparoscopic approach (336 versus 283 min; p = 0.001). The main pre-operative data, overall morbidity, hospital stay and oncological outcomes were similar in both groups, except for the readmission rate (robotic: 5.8%, laparoscopic: 11.6%; p = 0.001). The mean operative costs were higher for robotic surgery (4285.16 versus 3506.11€; p = 0.04); however, the mean overall costs were similar (7279.31€ for robotic and 6879.8€ for the laparoscopic approach; p = 0.44). We found four studies reporting costs, three comparing robotic versus laparoscopy costs, with all of them reporting a higher overall cost for the robotic rectal resection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal resection has similar clinical outcomes to that of the conventional laparoscopic approach. Despite the higher operative costs of robotic rectal resection, overall mean costs were similar in our series.

The robotic approach significantly reduces length of stay after colectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has helped overcome several of the inherent limitations of conventional laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to identify any short-term advantage of robotic-assisted (RC) over laparoscopic colectomy (LC) using standardized nationwide data.

METHODS

Patients from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2012-2014 datasets who underwent elective LC or RC were compared for patient demographics, comorbidity, diagnosis, extent of colon resection, operative duration, and conversion rates. Thirty-day postoperative complications and post-discharge utilization of resources, readmission, and discharge to another facility were also evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to balance the sample size in the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 35,839 LC and RC procedures, 2482 cases were eligible for propensity score matching for the statistically significant variables (standardized difference > 0.10) and 1241 colectomy procedures were assigned to each group. Most of the major, minor surgical, and medical postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. However, RC was associated with reduced 30-day postoperative septic complications (2.3 vs. 4%, p = 0.02), hospital stay (mean: 4.8 vs. 6.3 days, p = 0.001), and discharge to another facility (3.5 vs. 5.8%, p = 0.01). RC was, however, associated with readmission within 30 days after surgery (9.4 vs. 9.1%, p = 0.049). Postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, reoperation, reintubation, and mortality were equivalent between RC and LC.

CONCLUSION

This propensity score-matched analysis suggests that RC is associated with some recovery benefits over LC. Greater experience with the technique may allow these advantages to counter some of the cost-related concerns that have deterred the more widespread utilization of robotic technology for colectomy.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide recommendations for clinical practice and prevention of postoperative complications, such as circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, and compare the amount of intraoperative bleeding, safety, operative time, recovery, outcomes, and clinical significance of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures in anus-preserving rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature search (PubMed) was performed to identify biomedical research papers and abstracts of studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. We attempted to obtain the full-text link for papers published between 2000 and 2016, and hand-searched references for relevant literature. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Nine papers (949 patients) were eligible for inclusion; there were 473 patients (49.8%) in the robotic group and 476 patients (50.2%) in the laparoscopic group. According to the data provided in the literature, seven indicators were used to complete the evaluation. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted procedure was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] −41.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] −77.51, −4.79; P=0.03), lower open conversion rate (risk difference [RD] −0.05; 95% CI −0.09, −0.01; P=0.02), lower hospital stay (MD −1.07; 95% CI −1.80, −0.33; P=0.005), lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.41, 0.83; P=0.003), and longer operative time (MD 33.73; 95% CI 8.48, 58.99; P=0.009) compared with conventional laparoscopy. There were no differences in the rate of CRM involvement (RD −0.02; 95% CI −0.05, 0.01; P=0.23) and days to return of bowel function (MD −0.03; 95% CI −0.40, 0.34; P=0.89).

Conclusion

The Da Vinci robot was superior to laparoscopy with respect to blood loss, open conversion, hospital stay, and postoperative complications during anus-preserving rectal cancer procedures; however, conventional laparoscopy had an advantage regarding operative time. The remaining indicators (CRMs and recovery from intestinal peristalsis) did not differ.

The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Conversion from minimally invasive to open colorectal surgery remains common and costly. Robotic colorectal surgery is associated with lower rates of conversion than laparoscopy, but institutions and payers remain concerned about equipment and implementation costs. Recognizing that reimbursement reform and bundled payments expand perspectives on cost to include the entire surgical episode, we evaluated the role of minimally invasive conversion in total payments.

METHODS

This is an observational study from a linked data registry including clinical data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative and payment data from the Michigan Value Collaborative between July 2012 and April 2015. We evaluated colorectal resections initiated with open and minimally invasive approaches, and compared reported risk-adjusted and price-standardized 30-day episode payments and their components.

RESULTS

We identified 1061 open, 1604 laparoscopic, and 275 robotic colorectal resections. Adjusted episode payments were significantly higher for open operations than for minimally invasive procedures completed without conversion ($19,489 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). The conversion rate was significantly higher with laparoscopic than robotic operations (15.1 vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Adjusted episode payments for minimally invasive operations converted to open were significantly higher than for those completed by minimally invasive approaches ($18,098 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). Payments for operations completed robotically were greater than those completed laparoscopically ($16,949 vs. $15,250, p < 0.001), but the difference was substantially decreased when conversion to open cases was included ($16,939 vs. $15,699, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Episode payments for open colorectal surgery exceed both laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive options. Conversion to open surgery significantly increases the payments associated with minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Because conversion rates in robotic colorectal operations are half of those in laparoscopy, the excess expenditures attributable to robotics are attenuated by consideration of the cost of conversions.

Considering Value in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of Costs and Outcomes Based on the Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approach for Proctectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare value (outcomes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and robotic.

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial. In the era of value-based medicine, costs must be considered along with outcomes.

METHODS

Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent proctectomy at our institution between 2010 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery (RS)] on an intent-to-treat basis. Groups were compared by direct costs of hospitalization for the primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 488 patients were evaluated; 327 were men (67%), median age was 59 (27-93) years, and restorative procedures were performed in 333 (68.2%). Groups were similar in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Significant outcome differences between groups were found in operative and anesthesia times (longer in the RS group), and in estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group). No significant differences were found in short-term oncologic outcomes. Direct cost of the hospitalization for primary resection and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly greater in the RS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value. If robotic proctectomy is to be widely applied in the future, the costs of the procedure must be reduced.

Trends and Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer between 2004 and 2012- an Analysis using National Inpatient Database

Limited data are available for the epidemiology and outcome of colorectal cancer in relation to the three main surgical treatment modalities (open, laparoscopic and robotic). Using the US National Inpatient Sample database from 2004 to 2012, we identified 1,265,684 hospitalized colorectal cancer patients. Over the 9 year period, there was a 13.5% decrease in the number of hospital admissions and a 43.5% decrease in in-hospital mortality. Comparing the trend of surgical modalities, there was a 35.4% decrease in open surgeries, a 3.5 fold increase in laparoscopic surgeries, and a 41.3 fold increase in robotic surgeries. Nonetheless, in 2012, open surgery still remained the preferred surgical treatment modality (65.4%), followed by laparoscopic (31.2%) and robotic surgeries (3.4%). Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries were associated with lower in-hospital mortality, fewer complications, and shorter length of stays, which might be explained by the elective nature of surgery and earlier tumor grades. After excluding patients with advanced tumor grades, laparoscopic surgery was still associated with better outcomes and lower costs than open surgery. On the contrary, robotic surgery was associated with the highest costs, without substantial outcome benefits over laparoscopic surgery. More studies are required to clarify the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery.

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history, surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma. During the last three decades, there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases. Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery. The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further, in the form of single-incision laparoscopy, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics. This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery, and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.