Costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resection: A systematic review

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between minimally invasive liver resection and open liver resection: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) has gained momentum in recent years. This study of contemporary data compares economic and clinical outcomes between MILR and open liver resection (OLR).

METHODS

We extracted data for patients undergoing liver resection between October 2015-September 2018 from the Premier Healthcare Database. We conducted a propensity score matched analysis to compare complications, in-hospital mortality, inpatient readmissions, discharge to institutional post-acute care, operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and total hospital cost between MILR and OLR patients.

RESULTS

From the eligible OLR (n = 3349) and MILR (n = 1367) patients, we propensity score matched 1261 from each cohort at a 1:1 ratio. After matching, MILR was associated with lower rates of complications (bleeding: 8.2% vs. 17.4%; respiratory failure: 5.5% vs. 10.9%; intestinal obstruction: 3.6% vs. 6.0%, and pleural effusion: 1.9% vs. 4.9%), in-hospital mortality (0.5% vs. 3.0%), 90-day inpatient readmissions (10.4% vs. 14.3%), discharge to institutional post-acute care (6.9% vs. 12.3%), shorter ORT (257 vs. 308 min) and LOS (4.3 vs. 7.2 days), and lower hospital costs ($19463 vs. $29119) (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MILR was associated with lower risk of complications and reduced hospital resource utilizations as compared with OLR.

Impact of Surgeon Volume on Outcomes and Expenditure Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Liver Resection: the Effect of Minimally Invasive Surgery

BACKGROUND

Although the role of annual surgeon volume on perioperative outcomes after liver resection (LR) has been investigated, there is a paucity of data regarding the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes of minimally invasive LR (MILR) versus open LR (OLR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing LR between 2013 and 2015 were identified in the Medicare inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Patients were classified into three groups based on surgeons' annual caseload: low (≤ 2 cases), medium (3-5 cases), or high (≥ 6 cases). Short-term outcomes and expenditures of LR, stratified by surgeon volume and minimally invasive surgery (MIS), were examined.

RESULTS

Among 3403 surgeons performing LR on 7169 patients, approximately 90% of surgeons performed less than 5 liver resections per year for Medicare patients. Only 7.1% of patients underwent MILR (n = 506). After adjustment, the likelihood of experiencing a complication and death within 90 days decreased with increasing surgeon volume. Outcomes of open and MILR among low- or high-volume surgeon groups, including rates of complications, 30- and 90-day readmission and mortality were similar. However, the difference of average total episode payment between open and MIS was higher in the high-volume surgeon group (low volume: $2929 vs. medium volume: $2333 vs. high volume: $7055).

CONCLUSION

Annual surgeon volume was an important predictor of outcomes following LR. MILR had comparable results to open LR among both the low- and high-volume surgeons.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A South American Experience with 2887 Cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been increasingly performed in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from specialized centers in Asia, Europe and USA. Data from South America are limited and based on single-center experiences. To date, no multicenter studies evaluated the results of LLR in South America. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience and results with LLR in South American centers.

METHODS

From February to November 2019, a survey about LLR was conducted in 61 hepatobiliary centers in South America, composed by 20 questions concerning demographic characteristics, surgical data, and perioperative results.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (83.6%) centers from seven different countries answered the survey. A total of 2887 LLR were performed, as follows: Argentina (928), Brazil (1326), Chile (322), Colombia (210), Paraguay (9), Peru (75), and Uruguay (8). The first program began in 1997; however, the majority (60.7%) started after 2010. The percentage of LLR over open resections was 28.4% (4.4-84%). Of the total, 76.5% were minor hepatectomies and 23.5% major, including 266 right hepatectomies and 343 left hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 9.7%, overall morbidity 13%, and mortality 0.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study assessing the dissemination and results of LLR in South America. It showed an increasing number of centers performing LLR with the promising perioperative results, aligned with other worldwide excellence centers.

Minimally invasive liver resection in the era of robotics: analysis of 214 cases

BACKGROUND

Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (MILR) techniques range from a hybrid-technique to full robotic approaches. When compared with open techniques, MILR has been shown to be advantageous by reducing pain, complications, length of stay and blood loss. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization between full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic liver resections among major (≥ 3 segments) and minor (≤ 2 segments) resections.

METHODS

A single-center comparative retrospective review was completed on 214 patients undergoing full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, or robotic liver resection procedures between 2005 and 2018.

RESULTS

Among minor resections: 85 full laparoscopic, 40 hand-assisted, and 35 robotic liver resection cases were analyzed; and among major resections: 13, 33, and 8 cases were analyzed, respectively. In the adjusted subgroup analysis of minor resections, OR time was significantly longer for the minor hand-assisted group ([Formula: see text] = 181 min; p < 0.05), and the average lesion size was smaller for the minor full laparoscopic group ([Formula: see text] = 4.2 cm; p < 0.05). Overall, direct hospital charges were lowest in the group of patients who underwent a minor resection using the full laparoscopic technique ([Formula: see text] = $39,054.90; p < 0.05), compared to the robotic technique. Due to the smaller sample size (n = 54) in the major resection subgroup, only two significant observations were made - the full laparoscopic group had the least amount of blood loss ([Formula: see text] = 227 cc; p < 0.05) and incurred the least amount of room and board charges compared to the other two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach appears favorable for minor resections as evidenced by shorter length of stay but more costly than full laparoscopy. Clinical outcomes appear to be more dependent upon the magnitude of the resection (i.e. major vs. minor) than the MILR technique chosen. Randomized trials may be indicated to discern the best indications and advantages of each technique.

Joint consensus on abdominal robotic surgery and anesthesia from a task force of the SIAARTI and SIC

Minimally invasive surgical procedures have revolutionized the world of surgery in the past decades. While laparoscopy, the first minimally invasive surgical technique to be developed, is widely used and has been addressed by several guidelines and recommendations, the implementation of robotic-assisted surgery is still hindered by the lack of consensus documents that support healthcare professionals in the management of this novel surgical procedure. Here we summarize the available evidence and provide expert opinion aimed at improving the implementation and resolution of issues derived from robotic abdominal surgery procedures. A joint task force of Italian surgeons, anesthesiologists and clinical epidemiologists reviewed the available evidence on robotic abdominal surgery. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of evidence. Statements and recommendations are provided for general issues regarding robotic abdominal surgery, operating theatre organization, preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management, and postoperative procedures and discharge. The consensus document provides evidence-based recommendations and expert statements aimed at improving the implementation and management of robotic abdominal surgery.

The Health Gain Obtainable from Pancreatic Resection for Adenocarcinoma in the Elderly

BACKGROUND

In treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), age does not represent a contraindication to surgery, even if aging is known to increase postoperative mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, long-term outcome remains poor and there is much debate on whether to operate or not in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to provide a general framework to evaluate the health gain obtainable from surgery for PDAC in relationship with age and tumor stage.

METHODS

A Monte Carlo simulation model was built taking into consideration pertinent literature from population-based studies regarding surgical and non-surgical outcomes for stages I-II PDAC. The health gain obtainable from surgery, in comparison to the choice of not resecting patients, was measured through number needed-to-treat (NNT) calculation.

RESULTS

Considering the typical stage I-II PDAC characteristics, the model showed that the mean lifespan after surgery was 28.1 ± 3.9 months and 9.3 ± 1.5 months after non-surgical therapies. The NNT with surgery in order to prevent one death at 5 years was 6 (95% CI 4-10), indicating an overall high gain obtainable from surgery. Sensitivity analyses on patient age and tumor stage suggested that starting from 76 years onward, the NNT progressively increases, resulting in a low cure rate of surgery in the elderly and becoming potentially harmful for patients aged above 80 years. These figures were more pronounced for tumor stages IIA and IIB.

CONCLUSIONS

The present general framework suggests that the lifespan benefit obtainable from pancreatectomy in elderly patients is uncertain especially with the advancing of the tumor stage.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.