Identifying Hospital Cost Savings Opportunities by Optimizing Surgical Approach for Distal Pancreatectomy

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Four-Day Robotic Whipple: Early Discharge after Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The authors aimed to assess the safety of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and early discharge pathway in a robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) program and compared outcomes with an open PD control cohort to identify the synergistic effects of robotic surgery and an ERAS pathway on lengths of stay (LOS).

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic PD from a single surgeon between March 2020 and July 2022 were identified. Logistic regression models were used for adjusted analyses of postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 134 consecutive PD patients, of which 40 (30%) were performed robotically. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common indication in both open (56%) and robotic (55%, p = 0.51) groups, with a similar proportion of them being borderline resectable or locally advanced tumors (78% vs 82% in robotic group, p = 0.82). The LOS was significantly shorter in the robotic PD group (median, 5 [IQR 4 to 7] days) when compared with the open PD group (median, 6 [IQR 5 to 8] days, p < 0.001). LOS of 4 days or fewer were observed in 40% of the robotic PD group compared with only 3% of patients in the open PD group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the overall readmission rate (10% vs 12% in the robotic PD group, p = 0.61). On multivariable logistic regression, robotic PD was independently associated with higher odds of LOS of 4 days or fewer (odds ratio 22.4, p = 0.001) when compared with open PD.

CONCLUSIONS

An ERAS and early discharge pathway could be safely implemented in a robotic PD program. Patients undergoing robotic PD have significantly shorter length of stay without increased complication or readmission rate compared with open PD, with 40% of patients undergoing robotic PD achieving a LOS of 4 days or fewer.

The Role of Laparoscopic Surgery in Localized Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PNETs) are a rare and heterogeneous group of tumours with various clinical manifestations and biological behaviours. They represent approximately 2-4% of all pancreatic tumours, with an incidence of 2-3 cases per million people. PNETs are classified clinically as non-functional or functional, and pancreatic resection is recommended for lesions greater than 2 cm. The surgical approach can involve "typical" and "atypical" resections depending on the number, size and location of the tumour. Typical resections include pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy enucleation and, rarely, total pancreatectomy. Atypical resections comprise central pancreatectomies or enucleations. Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been proven to be technically feasible and safe in high-volume and specialized centres with highly skilled laparoscopic surgeons, with consolidated benefits for patients in the postoperative course. However, open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery remains to have a high rate of complications; there is no specific technical contraindication to minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, but an appropriate patient selection is crucial to obtain satisfactory clinical and oncological outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Surgery of Pancreatic Cancer: Feasibility and Rationale

Minimally invasive pancreatic procedures, in particular minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy, are amongst the most technically challenging procedures in general surgery. Accordingly, a high number of cases is required to master the procedures. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is well established for benign and premalignant lesions of the pancreas. Borderline resectable tumors with infiltration of the portal vein are also resected minimally invasively in specialized centers with appropriate expertise. Retrospective and registry studies demonstrate an equivalent long-term survival compared to conventional surgery. Perioperative morbidity and mortality are also equivalent, whereas minimally invasive surgery significantly reduces hospital stay. We expect more widespread use of minimally invasive pancreatic procedures in large centers.