Robotic single-site versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Which is cheaper? A cost report and analysis

Costs of Robotic and Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Propensity Score-matched Analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic bariatric surgery has not shown significant advantages compared to laparoscopy, yet costs remain a major concern. The aim of our study was to assess costs of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of all patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our institution. We retrieved demographics, clinical characteristics, postoperative data, and costs using a bottom-up approach. The primary endpoint was hospital costs in the robotic and laparoscopic groups. Data was analyzed using a propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Out of the total 122 patients enrolled in the study, 42 were subsequently chosen based on propensity scores, with 21 patients allocated to each group. No difference in clinical characteristics and postoperative outcomes were noted. Length of hospital stay was 2.4 ± 0.7 days vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 days (p = 0.520). In the robotic and laparoscopic groups, total costs were USD 16,275 ± 4018 vs. 12,690 ± 2834 (absolute difference USD 3585, 95%CI 1416-5753, p = 0.002), direct costs were USD 5037 ± 1282 vs. 3720 ± 1308 (absolute difference USD 1316, 95% CI 509-2214, p = 0.002), and indirect costs were USD 11,238 ± 3234 vs. 8970 ± 3021 (absolute difference USD 2,268, 95% CI 317-4220, p = 0.024). Subgroup analyses revealed a decreasing trend in the cost difference in patients undergoing primary gastric bypass and revisional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall hospital costs were higher in patients operated on with the robotic system than with laparoscopy, yet a clinical advantage has not been demonstrated so far. Subgroup analyses showed lesser disparity in costs among patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery, where robotics are likely to be more worthwhile.

Is implementation of robotic-assisted procedures in acute care general surgery cost-effective?

Over the past 2 decades, the use and importance of robotic surgery in minimally invasive surgery has increased. Across various surgical specialties, robotic technology has gained popularity through its use of 3D visualization, optimal ergonomic positioning, and precise instrument manipulation. This growing interest has also been seen in acute care surgery, where laparoscopic procedures are used more frequently. Despite the growing popularity of robotic surgery in the acute care surgical realm, there is very little research on the utility of robotics regarding its effects on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The current literature indicates some value in utilizing robotic technology in specific urgent procedures, such as cholecystectomies and incarcerated hernia repairs; however, the high cost of robotic surgery was found to be a potential barrier to its widespread use in acute care surgery. This narrative literature review aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in surgical procedures that are often done in urgent settings: cholecystectomies, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, and appendectomies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic cholecystectomy in the treatment of benign gallbladder disease

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the current standard of care treatment for benign gallbladder disease. Robotic cholecystectomy is another approach for performing cholecystectomy that offers a surgeon better dexterity and visualization. However, robotic cholecystectomy may increase cost without sufficient evidence to suggest an improvement in clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to construct a decision tree model to compare cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and robotic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Complication rates and effectiveness associated with robotic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy over a 1-year time frame were compared using a decision tree model populated with data from the published literature. Cost was calculated using Medicare data. Effectiveness was represented by quality-adjusted life-years. The primary outcome of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which compares the cost per quality-adjusted life-year of the 2 interventions. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Results were confirmed with 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses varying branch-point probabilities.

RESULTS

The studies used in our analysis included 3,498 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 1,833 patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy, and 392 patients who required conversion to open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy produced 0.9722 quality-adjusted life-years, costing $9,370.06. Robotic cholecystectomy produced an additional 0.0017 quality-adjusted life-years at an additional $3,013.64. These results equate to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,795,735.21/quality-adjusted life-year. This exceeds the willingness-to-pay threshold, making laparoscopic cholecystectomy the more cost-effective strategy. Sensitivity analyses did not alter results.

CONCLUSION

Traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the more cost-effective treatment modality for benign gallbladder disease. At present, robotic cholecystectomy is not able to improve clinical outcomes enough to justify its added cost.

Robotic Cholecystectomies: What Are They Good for? - A Retrospective Study - Robotic versus Conventional Cases

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted cholecystectomies are often criticized as expensive with uncertain benefit to patients. Characterization of robotic surgery benefits, as well as specific factors that drive cost, has the potential to shape the current debate.

METHODS

The surgical cost and outcomes among patients who underwent robotic (n = 283) or non-robotic (n = 1438) laparoscopic cholecystectomies between 2012 and 2018 at a single academic institution were examined retrospectively. All cholecystectomies were primary surgical procedures with no secondary procedures. We also examined the subset of robotic (n = 277) and non-robotic (n = 1108) outpatient procedures.

RESULTS

Robotic cholecystectomies were associated with higher median total cost compared to conventional procedures, largely attributable to variable costs and surgical costs. Patients who underwent conventional cholecystectomy had longer mean lengths of stays (1.7 versus 1.1 days) compared to robotic procedures-with over 10 times as many requiring hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, robotic cholecystectomies have a little value to patients and institutions outside of surgical training. Prior to narrowing the analysis to outpatient cases, difference in total cost between procedures was less pronounced due to more frequent inpatient management following conventional procedures. Future optimization of robotic consumables and free market competition among system manufacturers may increase financial feasibility by decreasing variable costs associated with robotic surgery.

Evaluating the impact of surgical supply cost variation during partial nephrectomy on patient outcomes

Background

Reducing surgical supply costs can help to lower hospital expenditures. We aimed to evaluate whether variation in supply costs between urologic surgeons performing both robotic or open partial nephrectomies is associated with differential patient outcomes.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed 399 consecutive robotic (n=220) and open (n=179) partial nephrectomies performed at an academic center. Surgical supply costs were determined at the institution-negotiated rate. Through retrospective review, we identified factors related to case complexity, patient comorbidity, and perioperative outcomes. Two radiologists assigned nephrometry scores to grade tumor complexity. We created univariate and multivariable models for predictors of supply costs, length of stay, and change in serum creatinine.

Results

Median supply cost was $3,201 [interquartile range (IQR): $2,201–3,808] for robotic partial nephrectomy and $968 (IQR: $819–1,772) for open partial nephrectomy. Mean nephrometry score was 7.0 (SD =1.7) for robotic procedures and 8.2 (SD =1.6) for open procedures. In multivariable models, the surgeon was the primary significant predictor of variation in surgical supply costs for both procedure types. In multivariable mixed-effects analysis with surgeon as a random effect, supply cost was not a significant predictor of change in serum creatinine for robotic or open procedures. Supply cost was not a statistically significant predictor of length of stay for the open procedure. Supply cost was a significant predictor of longer length of stay for the robotic procedure, however it was not a clinically meaningful change in length of stay (0.02 days per $100 in supply costs).

Conclusions

Higher supply spending did not predict significantly improved patient outcomes. Variability in surgeon supply preference is the likely source of variability in supply cost. These data suggest that efforts to promote cost-effective utilization and standardization of supplies in partial nephrectomy could help reduce costs without harming patients.

Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the Australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload

Background

A barrier to the uptake of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to be the perceived high costs. A lack of detailed costing information has made it difficult for public hospitals in particular to determine whether use of the technology is justified. This study aims to provide a detailed description of the patient episode costs and the contribution of RAS specific costs for multiple specialties in the public sector.

Methods

A retrospective descriptive costing review of all RAS cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from August 2016 to December 2018 was completed. This included RAS cases within benign gynaecology, cardiothoracic, colorectal and urology, with the total costs described utilizing various inpatient costing data, and RAS specific implementation, maintenance and consumable costs.

Results

Of 211 RAS patients, substantial variation was found between specialties with the overall median cost per patient being $19,269 (Interquartile range (IQR): $15,445 to $32,199). The RAS specific costs were $8828 (46%) made up of fixed costs including $4691 (24%) implementation and $2290 (12%) maintenance, both of which are volume dependent; and $1848 (10%) RAS consumable costs. This was in the context of 37% robotic theatre utilisation.

Conclusions

There is considerable variation across surgical specialties for the cost of RAS. It is important to highlight the different cost components and drivers associated with a RAS program including its dependence on volume and how it fits within funding systems in the public sector.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06105-z.

Propensity score-matching analysis for single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although the single-site robotic cholecystectomy(SSRC) has been performed with expectation of overcoming the limitation of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC), there exists a lack of comparison studies involving SILC and SSRC. This study aimed to analyze surgical outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy by propensity score-matching analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2009 to August 2015, 290 consecutive patients underwent SSRC or SILC at Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Potential confounding factors for operative outcomes were adjusted by propensity score-matching analysis. One hundred four patients from each group were evaluated for perioperative outcomes and compared for a retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

There was no difference in potential cofounders such as gender, age, body mass index (BMI), and perioperative cholecystitis-related symptoms between two groups after propensity score-matching. However, mean operation time was shorter (56.69 ± 13.65 vs. 101.57 ± 27.05 min; p < 0.001) and median bleeding amount during surgery was less (0 (0-50) vs. 0 (0-100) mL; p < 0.001) in the SILC group. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to conventional multiport cholecystectomy. Bile leakage due to perforation of the gallbladder during surgery was more common in the SILC group (6.7% vs. 17.3%; p = 0.019). Moreover, bile spillage rate was significantly increased in conjunction with a higher BMI in the SILC group, whereas BMI did not affect the bile leakage rate in the SSRC group.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRC is not superior to SILC except regarding bile spillage incidence. However, the technical stability and clinically undetected advantages of SSRC are expected to prompt surgeons to perform this more reliable procedure.

Robotic Biliary Surgery

Robotic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible approach and can be combined with common bile duct exploration to address complicated pathology in a single setting. This article summarizes reported outcomes after robotic biliary surgery. A technical overview of robotic multiport and single port cholecystectomy is provided. Last, the approach to benign bile duct disease during robotic cholecystectomy, including reconstruction of the biliary tree, is described.

Status of Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) in the Department of Defense (DoD)

INTRODUCTION

Since inception of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in 1999, there has been an exponential rise in RAS in both number and complexity of surgical cases performed. The majority of these cases are gynecologic surgery in nature, with only a quarter of them labeled as general surgery. The purpose of this study is to determine if RAS in the Department of Defense (DoD) mirrors these trends.

METHODS

A total of 6,204 RAS cases from across the DoD were reviewed between 01 January 2015 and 30 September 2017 from every Military Treatment Facility (MTF) that employs a robotic surgical device (various models of the da Vinci robotic surgical system by Intuitive Surgical). Specialty, number, and surgeon were recorded for each case. These end points were also examined for trends overtime and compared to similar civilian data.

RESULTS

The number of MTFs performing robotic surgery and the number of cases performed increased significantly. An average of 373 cases per quarter-year were performed in 2015, 647 in 2016, and 708 in 2017. The number of RAS cases increased by about 10% every quarter-year during this time period. RAS was most commonly performed by general surgery in 10 of the 14 MTFs examined.

CONCLUSIONS

MTFs implemented RAS much later than the civilian world. However, since its implementation, the frequency of RAS use has increased at a faster rate in the DoD than in the civilian world. Possible reasons for this are a younger pool of surgeons in the military and less demands on cost-effective productivity, allowing these younger surgeons to focus on emerging technology rather than maximizing surgical cost efficiency. General surgery constitutes the majority of RAS cases in the DoD. It is unclear why this difference from the civilian world exists.

Oncologic Resection in Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy

Background and Objectives:

As the use of robotic surgery continues to increase, little is known about robotic oncologic outcomes compared with traditional methods in esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to examine the perioperative oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (THE).

Methods:

Thirty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE for malignant disease over a 3-year period were identified in a retrospective database. Eighteen patients underwent robotic-assisted THE with cervical anastomosis, and 18 patients underwent laparoscopic THE. All procedures were performed by a single foregut and thoracic surgeon.

Results:

Patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups with no significant differences. Lymph node yields for both laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE were similar at 13.9 and 14.3, respectively (P = .90). Ninety-four percent of each group underwent R0 margins, but only 1 patient from each modality had microscopic positive margins. All of the robot-assisted patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, whereas 83.3% underwent neoadjuvant therapy in the laparoscopy group (P = .23). Clinical and pathologic stagings were similar in each group. There was 1 death after laparoscopic surgery in a cirrhotic patient and no mortalities among the robot-assisted THE patients (P = .99). One patient from each group experienced an anastomotic leak, but neither patient required further intervention.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted THEs yield similar perioperative oncologic results including lymph node yield and margin status. In the transition from laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery should be considered oncologically noninferior compared with laparoscopy.

Safety of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) is the gold standard technique for cholecystectomy. In order to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic results, the application of the single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) technique was introduced, leading surgeons to face important challenges. Robotic technology has been proposed to overcome some of these limitations. The purpose of this review is to assess the safety of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) for benign disease.

METHODS

An Embase and Pubmed literature search was performed in February 2017. Randomized controlled trial and prospective observational studies were selected and assessed using PRISMA recommendations. Primary outcome was overall postoperative complication rate. Secondary outcomes were postoperative bile leak rate, total conversion rate, operative time, wound complication rate, postoperative hospital stay, and port site hernia rate. The outcomes were analyzed in Forest plots based on fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies provided data about 1010 patients who underwent to SIRC for benign disease of gallbladder. Overall postoperative complications rate was 11.6% but only 4/1010 (0.4%) patients required further surgery. A postoperative bile leak was reported in 3/950 patients (0.3%). Conversion occurred in 4.2% of patients. Mean operative time was 86.7 min including an average of 42 min should be added as for robotic console time. Wound complications occurred in 3.7% of patients. Median postoperative hospital stay was 1 day. Port site hernia at the latest follow-up available was reported in 5.2% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Da Vinci robot in single-port cholecystectomy seems to have similar results in terms of incidence and grade of complications compared to standard laparoscopy. In addition, it seems affected by the same limitations of single-port surgery, consisting of an increased operative time and incidence of port site hernia.

Minimally Invasive Pediatric Cholecystectomy: A Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Single and Multiport Techniques

BACKGROUND

Pediatric laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the current standard of care for gallbladder pathology. Single-incision and multiport procedures, as well as robotic and minimally invasive platforms, have been described; however, there is no head-to-head assessment of these interventions in the existing literature. The purpose of our study was to directly compare the minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques of laparoscopic multiport (LMP), laparoscopic single incision (LSI), robotic multiport (RMP), and robotic single incision (RSI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All cholecystectomies performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary-care center from 2010 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Seventy-one subjects were included as follows: 30 LMP, 20 LSI, 11 RMP, and 10 RSI. Data were collected on patient characteristics, operative technique, operative times, medications, and postoperative course and analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis test with a significance of P < .05.

RESULTS

Operative times for LMP and RSI were similar and shortest of all groups, while LSI was the most time consuming (P = .04). Pain medication use, both narcotic and non-narcotic, was not statistically different with any operation type (P = .37 and .98, respectively). Postoperative length of stay was similar across all groups except for the RSI group which was significantly shorter (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

RSI cholecystectomy has significantly shorter postoperative length of stay compared to other minimally invasive techniques. In addition, operative times for RSI are equivalent to the current standard LMP technique.

The emerging role for robotics in cholecystectomy: the dawn of a new era?

Though laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was highly criticized in its early stages, it quickly grew to become a new standard of care and has revolutionized the field of general surgery. Now emerging robotic technology is making its way into the minimally invasive arena. Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is often disparaged as a costly technology that can lead to increased operative times with outcomes that are quite similar to LC. However, this perspective is skewed as many existing studies were performed in the early phase of learning for this procedure. RC can be performed in a cost-effective manner as the volume of robotic procedures increases. In addition, improved visualization and capability to perform fluorescence cholangiography can improve the safety profile of cholecystectomy to a level that has not yet been achieved with conventional laparoscopy. Advanced simulation technology for robotic surgery, and newer single-site robotic platforms have the potential to further revolutionize this technology and lead to improved patient satisfaction. In this review, we will present current data, trends, and controversies in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy.

Building a Single-Site Robotic Cholecystectomy Program in a Public Teaching Hospital: Is It Safe for Patients and Feasible for Residents to Participate?

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) accounts for most of the robotic surgery cases performed by general surgeons at our institution since acquiring the da Vinci Si Surgical SystemTM (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) in 2014. We sought to determine whether a SSRC program is safe to start in a public teaching hospital and to determine whether resident participation in this procedure is feasible. Data on age, gender, race, BMI, total operative time, length of stay, comorbidities, and conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery were examined for elective SSRC and laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) performed by two faculty surgeons between February 2015 and August 2015. Thirty-eight patients underwent elective SSRC, whereas 27 patients underwent LC. Residents participated as operating surgeons for some portion of the case in 15 SSRC cases and in all LC cases. There were no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, or 30-day readmission rates, regardless of resident involvement. Patients in the SSRC group had a significantly lower BMI (25.8 vs 33.7, P = 0.008). This study suggests that resident participation does not increase complications or total operative time and that SSRC is a safe procedure to start in a public teaching hospital after proper faculty and resident training.

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair has certain advantages over open repair including less pain and earlier return to normal activity. Concurrent robotic inguinal hernia repair at the time of prostatectomy has been shown to have a lower recurrence rate than open repair. Robotic surgery adds high definition visualization and articulating instruments which enhances dexterity that makes laparoscopic hernia repair more refined. A series of robotic, laparoscopic, inguinal hernia repairs by a single surgeon with an extensive laparoscopic hernia experience at a single institution was undertaken to determine the role of robotic laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in minimally invasive surgery. Five hundred forty-two laparoscopic inguinal hernia operations were performed from April 2012 through December 2015. There were 154 cases of robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal procedures done during that time. Hospital records and follow-up care were pro-spectively reviewed and data collected for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesia class, and operative time. Follow-up was done at 2, 8, and 16 weeks after surgery. All patients consented for the study. Ninety percent of the patients were male. Age averaged 57.04 years with a range of 21 to 85 years. American Society of Anesthesia averaged 2.01 with comorbidities of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and gastroesophageal reflux disease being the most common. Body mass index was between 19 and 31.6, averaging 24.34. Twenty-five patients (16%) had an umbilical hernia repair done concomitantly. Operating room time ranged from 25 to 140 minutes with an average of 63.6 minutes decreased as experience increased. One patient with a large, left scrotal hernia was converted to open; one patient developed perforated sigmoid diverticulitis seven days postop and case #5 recurred indirectly after a direct hernia repair. Four patients required prolonged postoperative Foley catheterization. Robotic inguinal hernia repair is safe and effective. Operating room time was longer than standard laparoscopic herniorrhaphy but decreased with experience. A single-port platform may have use in patients with umbilical hernias, 16 per cent, and will need to be studied.

The utilization of fluorescent cholangiography during robotic cholecystectomy at an inner-city academic medical center

In recent years, fluorescent cholangiography using Indocyanine green (ICG) dye has been used to aid identification of structures during robotic cholecystectomy. We sought to compare cholecystectomy with ICG dye versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy at an inner-city academic medical center. Between January 2013 and July 2016, we identified 287 patients of which 191 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 96 patients underwent robotic cholecystectomy with ICG dye. Preoperative risk variables of interest included age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), and acute cholecystitis. Primary outcome of interest was conversion to open procedures while secondary outcome was length of stay. The two groups were similar in their BMI (31.98 vs. 31.10 kg/m² for the laparoscopic and robotic, respectively, p = 0.32). The laparoscopic group had a greater mean age compared to the robotic group (47.77 vs. 43.61 years, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in sex and emergency surgery between the two groups. Fewer open conversions were found in the robotic than the laparoscopic group [2 (2.1%) vs. 17 (8.9%), p = 0.03]. In multiple logistic regression, robotic cholecystectomy with ICG also showed a lower risk of conversion compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.65, p = 0.22). ICG fluorescent cholangiography during robotic cholecystectomy may contribute to proper identification of biliary structures and may reduce the rates of open conversion. The preliminary results of fewer open conversions are promising. Further studies with a large randomized prospective controlled study should be taken for further evaluation.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis

BACKGROUND

The robotic surgery cost presents a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Data were abstracted prospectively from 2011 to 2017. An independent company performed the financial analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 28 RDP and 26 LDP were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the LDP (294 vs 241 min; p = 0.02). The main intra and post-operative data were similar, except for the conversion rate (RDP: 3.6% vs LDP: 19.2%; p = 0.04) and hospital stay (RDP: 8.9 vs LDP 13.1 days; p = 0.04). The mean total costs were similar in both groups (RDP: 9198.64 € vs LDP: 9399.74 €; p > 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP showed lower conversion rate and shorter hospital stay than LDP at the price of longer operative time. RDP is financially comparable to LDP.

Randomized controlled trial of EndoWrist-enabled robotic versus human laparoendoscopic single-site access surgery (LESS) in the porcine model

INTRODUCTION

A robotic laparoendoscopic single-site access surgery (R-LESS) platform that incorporates the EndoWrist function of robotic instruments may provide better triangulation and retraction during LESS. The aim of the study is to assess if R-LESS is feasible with standard robotic instruments via a single incision and whether the approach could reduce the difficulty of the procedure and confer additional benefits over conventional LESS.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study investigating the workload performance, efficacy, and risks of performing R-LESS when compared with human LESS (H-LESS) in a survival porcine model for cholecystectomy and gastrojejunostomy. The primary outcome is the NASA task load index. Secondary outcomes included the difficulty of the procedures, procedural time, morbidities, and mortalities.

RESULTS

Twenty-four cholecystectomies and gastrojejunostomies using the R-LESS or H-LESS approach (12:12) were performed. None of the swine suffered from procedural adverse events and none of the procedures required conversion. In both the cholecystectomy and gastrojejunostomy groups, R-LESS was associated with significantly lower NASA task load index (P < 0.001) and reduced difficulties in various steps of the procedures. No differences in the overall procedure times of the two procedures were observed (P = 0.315).

CONCLUSION

The R-LESS approach significantly reduced the workload and difficulties of LESS cholecystectomies and gastrojejunostomies. A dedicated single-site platform that could reduce instrument clashing while retaining the EndoWrist function is eagerly awaited.

Value-based assessment of robotic pancreas and liver surgery

Current healthcare economic evaluations are based only on the perspective of a single stakeholder to the healthcare delivery process. A true value-based decision incorporates all of the outcomes that could be impacted by a single episode of surgical care. We define the value proposition for robotic surgery using a stakeholder model incorporating the interests of all groups participating in the provision of healthcare services: patients, surgeons, hospitals and payers. One of the developing and expanding fields that could benefit the most from a complete value-based analysis is robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery. While initial robot purchasing costs are high, the benefits over laparoscopic surgery are considerable. Performing a literature search we found a total of 18 economic evaluations for robotic HPB surgery. We found a lack of evaluations that were carried out from a perspective that incorporates all of the impacts of a single episode of surgical care and that included a comprehensive hospital cost assessment. For distal pancreatectomies, the two most thorough examinations came to conflicting results regarding total cost savings compared to laparoscopic approaches. The most thorough pancreaticoduodenectomy evaluation found non-significant savings for total hospital costs. Robotic hepatectomies showed no cost savings over laparoscopic and only modest savings over open techniques. Lastly, robotic cholecystectomies were found to be more expensive than the gold-standard laparoscopic approach. Existing cost accounting data associated with robotic HPB surgery is incomplete and unlikely to reflect the state of this field in the future. Current data combines the learning curves for new surgical procedures being undertaken by HPB surgeons with costs derived from a market dominated by a single supplier of robotic instruments. As a result, the value proposition for stakeholders in this process cannot be defined. In order to solve this problem, future studies must incorporate (I) quality of life, survival, and return to independent function alongside data such as (II) intent-to-treat analysis of minimally-invasive surgery accounting for conversions to open, (III) surgeon and institution experience and operative time as surrogates for the learning curve; and (IV) amortization and maintenance costs as well as direct costs of disposables and instruments.

Variation and Predictors of Surgical Case Costs among Urologists

Introduction

Shifts in the health care delivery system have emphasized providing cost-efficient care. The operating room comprises a significant proportion of hospital costs. Analysis of practice variation in operating room supply use can provide insight into opportunities for cost reduction and improved efficiency without compromising outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of urological procedures performed at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center from September 2012 through December 2015. Supply costs for individual cases were itemized and aggregated using the institution negotiated rate. Operative time was monetized. Supply cost was analyzed with multivariate mixed effects models evaluating surgeon experience and surgeon volume.

Results

The majority of common urological procedures demonstrate significant variation among surgeons in supply, time and overall cost. Surgeon annual procedure specific volume was a significant predictor of lower cost in multivariate analysis of supply cost (p = 0.016) and correlated with a lower likelihood of the case supply cost being in the top quintile (p <0.001). Surgeon experience was not a significant predictor of absolute supply cost or being in the top quintile of supply cost.

Conclusions

Significant variation exists among supply costs of high volume procedures. Higher surgeon procedure specific volume predicts lower operating room supply costs. Targeting procedures with variation for cost optimization via standardization could have a substantial impact on operating room costs and efficiency. The experience of high volume surgeons may be useful to guide optimal supply use given their comparatively lower costs.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A comparative study of medical resource utilization and clinical outcomes

Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) is currently the standard of surgical procedure for gallstone disease. Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has revolutionized the field of minimally invasive surgery; it is safe and ergonomic, but expensive. The aim of this study is to compare the medical resource utilization and clinical outcomes between the two procedures. This study was conducted retrospectively by assessing data of the clinical outcomes and medical resource of 78 patients receiving RC and 367 patients receiving CLC. We reviewed the data of operation times, length of hospital stay, hospital charges, outpatient department visits, outpatient department service charges, and postoperative complications, which were retrieved from the health information system (HIS) database in this hospital. Patients in both groups had similar demographic and clinical features. The RC group had longer length of hospital stay (p=0.056), significantly longer operation time (p=0.035), and much more hospital charges (p=0.001). The RC group, however, experienced less postoperative complication rates (average 3.8% vs. 20.4%, p=0.001). Conversion rate was 1.9% in the CLC group versus 0% in the RC group (p=0.611). Most complications were mild, and following the Clavien-Dindo classification, there were two cases (2.5%) Grade I for the RC group; 50 cases (13.6%) Grade I and 14 cases (3.81%) Grade II for the CLC group (p<0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Procedure-related complications of Grade IIIa status were encountered in nine patients (2.45%) in the CLC group and none in the RC group (p=0.002).The RC group consumed more medical resources in the index hospitalization; however, they experienced significantly less postoperative complications.

Financial Impact of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between the Robotic and Open Technique in a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

One of the perceived major drawbacks of minimally invasive techniques has always been its cost. This is especially true for the robotic approach and is one of the main reasons that has prevented its wider acceptance among hospitals and surgeons. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and economic impact of robotic and open liver surgery in a single institution.

METHODS

Sixty-eight robotic and 55 open hepatectomies were performed at our institution between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013. Demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups. An independent company performed the financial analysis. The economic parameters comprised direct variable costs, direct fixed costs, and indirect costs.

RESULTS

Mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the robotic group (438 versus 727.8 mL; P = .038). Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the robotic group (22% versus 40%; P = .047). Clavien III/IV complications were also lower, with 4.4% in the robotic versus 16.3% in the open group (P = .043). The length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was shorter for patients who underwent a robotic procedure (2.1 versus 3.3 days; P = .004). The average total cost, including readmissions, was $37,518 for robotic surgery and $41,948 for open technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resections had less overall morbidity, ICU, and hospital stay. This translates into decreased average costs for robotic surgery. These procedures are financially comparable to open resections and do not represent a financial burden to the hospital.

Single-Site Robotic Cholecystectomy at an Inner-City Academic Center

Introduction:

We investigate the safety and efficacy of single-site robotic cholecystectomy compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy at an inner-city academic medical center.

Materials and Methods:

Retrospective analysis comparing single-site robotic to laparoscopic cholecystectomies from August 1, 2013, to January 31, 2015, was conducted. Age, gender, race, body mass index (BMI), total operative time (docking and console time for robotic cases), length of stay, comorbidities, and conversion to open procedures were examined. The χ² and Student's t test were used for categorical and continuous data, respectively. A P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

From August 2013 to January 2015, 70 single-site robotic cholecystectomies and 70 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed. Patients were older (mean age, 40.3 years vs 47.6 years; P = .0084), had a higher mean BMI (29.5 vs 32.4 kg/m²; P = .011), and had a higher assigned ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) classification (P = .024) in the laparoscopic than in the single-site group. Hypertension was more common in the laparoscopic group (P = .0078). Average docking time was 11.5 (SD 5.7) minutes, and the average console time was 52.8 (SD 22.5) minutes in the single-site group. Total operating time for the laparoscopic and single-site groups was not significantly different (111.5 minutes vs 106.0 minutes; P = .38). There were more conversions to open procedures in the laparoscopic compared to the single-site group (11 vs 1; P = .007). There were no biliary tree injuries and no deaths in either group.

Conclusion:

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is safe to perform in an inner-city academic hospital setting. Surgical resident involvement does not adversely affect outcomes.

Urgent and Elective Robotic Single-Site Cholecystectomy: Analysis and Learning Curve of 150 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic single-site cholecystectomy has increased exponentially. There are few reports describing the safety, efficacy, and operative learning curve of robotic single-site cholecystectomy either in the community setting or with nonelective surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of a prospective database of our initial experience with robotic single-site cholecystectomy. Demographics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated for both urgent and elective cholecystectomy. Cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the surgeon's learning curve.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty patients underwent robotic single-site cholecystectomy. Seventy-four (49.3%) patients underwent urgent robotic single-site cholecystectomy, and 76 (50.7%) underwent elective robotic single-site cholecystectomy. Mean total operative time for robotic single-site cholecystectomy was 83.3 ± 2.7 minutes. Mean operative time for the urgent cohort was significantly longer than for the elective cohort (95.0 ± 4.4 versus 71.9 ± 2.6 minutes; P < .001). There was one conversion in the urgent cohort and none in the elective cohort. There was one bile duct injury (0.7%) in the urgent cohort. Perioperative complications occurred in 8.7% of patients, and most consisted of superficial surgical-site infections. There were no incisional hernias detected. The surgeon's learning curve, inclusive of urgent and elective cases, was 48 operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic single-site cholecystectomy can be performed safely and effectively in both elective and urgent cholecystectomy with a reasonable learning curve and acceptable perioperative outcomes.