Analysis of Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Open Versus Robotic Gastrectomy

Prevalence of and Factors Associated with Financial Toxicity After Pancreatectomy and Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity (FT) refers to the adverse impact of cancer treatment costs on patients' experiences, potentially leading to poor adherence to treatment and outcomes. However, the prevalence of FT among patients undergoing major upper gastrointestinal cancer operations, as well as factors associated with FT, remain unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study by sending the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) survey and Surgery-Q (a survey specifically developed for this study) to patients who underwent gastrectomy or pancreatectomy for malignant disease at our institution in 2019-2021.

RESULTS

We sent the surveys to 627 patients and received responses from 101 (16%) patients. The FT prevalence (COST score <26) was 48 (48%). Patients likely to experience FT were younger than 50 years of age, of non-White race, earned an annual income <$75,000, and had credit scores <740 (all p < 0.05). Additionally, longer hospital stay (p = 0.041), extended time off work for surgery (p = 0.011), and extended time off work for caregivers (p = 0.005) were associated with FT. Procedure type was not associated with FT; however, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) had a lower FT probability (p = 0.042). In a multivariable analysis, age <50 years (p = 0.031) and credit score <740 (p < 0.001) were associated with high FT risk, while MIS was associated with low FT risk (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer have a major risk of FT. In addition to predicting the FT risk before surgery, facilitating quicker functional recovery with the appropriate use of MIS is considered important to reducing the FT risk.

Laparoscopic transverse abdominis plane block: how I do it and a cost efficiency analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy and efficiency of laparoscopic transverse abdominis plane block (Lap-TAP) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy and gastrectomy compared to those of ultrasound-guided TAP (US-TAP).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of patients who underwent open or minimally invasive (MIS) pancreatoduodenectomy and major gastrectomy with the use of Lap-TAP or US-TAP at our institution between November 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021. We compared the estimated time and cost associated with Lap-TAP and US-TAP. We also compared postoperative opioid use and pain scores between patients who underwent open laparotomy with these TAPs.

RESULTS

A total of 194 patients were included. Overall, 114 patients (59%) underwent pancreatectomy, and 80 patients (41%) underwent gastrectomy. Additionally, 138 patients (71%) underwent an open procedure, and 56 patients (29%) underwent MIS. A total of 102 patients (53%) underwent US-TAP, and 92 (47%) underwent Lap-TAP. The median time to skin incision was significantly shorter in the Lap-TAP group (US-TAP, 59 min vs. Lap-TAP, 45 min; P < 0.001), resulting in an estimated reduction in operation cost by $602. Pain scores and postoperative opioid use were similar between Lap-TAP and US-TAP among open surgery patients, indicating equivalent pain control between Lap-TAP and US-TAP.

CONCLUSION

Lap-TAP was equally effective in pain control as US-TAP after pancreatectomy and gastrectomy, and Lap-TAP can reduce operation time and cost. Lap-TAP is considered the preferred approach for MIS pancreatectomy and gastrectomy, which occasionally needs conversion to laparotomy.

Opioid-Free Discharge After Pancreatic Resection Through a Learning Health System Paradigm

Importance

Postoperative opioid overprescribing leads to persistent opioid use and excess pills at risk for misuse and diversion. A learning health system paradigm using risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways (RSPCPs) may lead to reduction in inpatient and discharge opioid volume.

Objective

To analyze the outcomes of 2 iterative RSPCP updates on inpatient and discharge opioid volumes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included 832 consecutive adult patients at an urban comprehensive cancer center who underwent pancreatic resection between October 2016 and April 2022, comprising 3 sequential pathway cohorts (version [V] 1, October 1, 2016, to January 31, 2019 [n = 363]; V2, February 1, 2019, to October 31, 2020 [n = 229]; V3, November 1, 2020, to April 30, 2022 [n = 240]).

Exposures

After V1 of the pathway established a baseline and reduced length of stay (n = 363), V2 (n = 229) updated patient and surgeon education handouts, limited intravenous opioids, suggested a 3-drug (acetaminophen, celecoxib, methocarbamol) nonopioid bundle, and implemented the 5×-multiplier (last 24-hour oral morphine equivalents [OME] multiplied by 5) to calculate discharge volume. Pathway version 3 (n = 240) required the nonopioid bundle as default in the recovery room and scheduled conversion to oral medications on postoperative day 1.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Inpatient and discharge opioid volume in OME across the 3 RSPCPs were compared using nonparametric testing and trend analyses.

Results

A total of 832 consecutive patients (median [IQR] age, 65 [56-72] years; 410 female [49.3%] and 422 male [50.7%]) underwent 541 pancreatoduodenectomies, 285 distal pancreatectomies, and 6 other pancreatectomies. Early nonopioid bundle administration increased from V1 (acetaminophen, 320 patients [88.2%]; celecoxib or anti-inflammatory, 98 patients [27.0%]; methocarbamol, 267 patients [73.6%]) to V3 (236 patients [98.3%], 163 patients [67.9%], and 238 patients [99.2%], respectively; P < .001). Total inpatient OME decreased from a median 290 mg (IQR, 157-468 mg) in V1 to 184 mg (IQR, 103-311 mg) in V2 to 129 mg (IQR, 75-206 mg) in V3 (P < .001). Discharge OME decreased from a median 150 mg (IQR, 100-225 mg) in V1 to 25 mg (IQR, 0-100 mg) in V2 to 0 mg (IQR, 0-50 mg) in V3 (P < .001). The percentage of patients discharged opioid free increased from 7.2% (26 of 363) in V1 to 52.5% (126 of 240) in V3 (P < .001), with 187 of 240 (77.9%) in V3 discharged with 50 mg OME or less. Median pain scores remained 3 or lower in all cohorts, with no differences in postdischarge refill requests. A subgroup analysis separating open and minimally invasive surgical cases showed similar results in both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, the median total inpatient OME was halved and median discharge OME reduced to zero in association with a learning health system model of iterative opioid reduction that is freely adaptable by other hospitals. These findings suggest that opioid-free discharge after pancreatectomy and other major cancer operations is realistic and feasible with this no-cost blueprint.

Short-Term and Textbook Surgical Outcomes During the Implementation of a Robotic Gastrectomy Program

BACKGROUND

Whether gastric cancer patients derive greater benefit from robotic gastrectomy (RG), or open gastrectomy (OG) is unknown. We initiated a RG program in 2018, with prospective short-term outcome monitoring to ensure safety. We hypothesized that the RG program for gastric cancer can be safely implemented with equivalent safety and oncological textbook outcomes (TOs) to conventional open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

The study included patients who underwent curative-intent OG or RG for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2018 and December 2021. TO metrics were negative surgical margins, ≥ 15 lymph nodes examined, no severe (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) postoperative complications, no reinterventions within 90 days after surgery, no ICU admission, no prolonged length of stay (LOS; > 10 days), no 90-day postoperative mortality, and no readmission within 90 days after surgery. Overall TO was achieved when all these metrics were met.

RESULTS

Of 161 patients, 120 underwent OG, and 41 underwent RG. The two groups' demographic and disease characteristics did not differ significantly. Compared with OG patients, RG patients had a longer median surgery time (348 vs. 282 min), smaller median blood loss volume (50 vs. 150 mL), lower mean prescribed opioid dose at discharge (12 vs. 45 mg), and shorter median LOS (4 vs. 7 days; all p < 0.001). The groups' postoperative complication rates (10% vs. 17%) did not differ significantly (p = 0.283). The overall TO rate of the RG group (73%) was higher than that of the OG group (60%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.131).

CONCLUSION

We were able to implement the RG program safely, without compromising safety or oncological outcomes.