Which method of pancreatic surgery do medical consumers prefer among open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery? A survey

Open versus minimally invasive hepatic and pancreatic surgery: 1-year costs, healthcare utilization and days of work lost

BACKGROUND

Utilization of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become increasingly popular due to its potential benefits such as earlier recovery and reduced morbidity. We sought to characterize differences in 1-year healthcare costs and missed workdays among patients undergoing MIS and open surgery for a hepatic or pancreatic indication.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent hepatic and pancreatic resection were obtained from the IBM Marketscan database. Generalized linear models were utilized to compare healthcare costs and missed workdays among patients undergoing MIS versus open surgery.

RESULTS

Among 8705 patients, 85.0 % (n = 7399) and 15.0 % (n = 1306) of patients underwent an open or MIS HP procedure, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, patients who underwent MIS were more likely to be female (62.7 % vs. 54.6 %) and were less likely to have a Charlson Comorbidity Index score >2 (34.5 % vs. 49.6 %) (both p < 0.05). After entropy balancing, multivariable analysis demonstrated that MIS was associated with lower 1-year post discharge expenditures (mean difference -$9,739, 95%CI-$12,893, -$6585) and fewer missed workdays at 1-year post-discharge (IRR 0.84, 95%CI 0.81-0.87) (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

At index hospitalization and 1-year post-discharge, an HP MIS approach was associated with lower healthcare expenditures versus open surgery for hepatic and pancreatic resection, as well as fewer missed workdays.

Robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: first Polish experience

In Poland, robotic surgery is nowadays perceived as a new method of surgical treatment in endometrial cancer patients. We aim to present the first Polish group of endometrial cancer patients treated using robotic surgery. The analysis was based on 79 patients with mean age of 59.72 ± 11.709 (range 27-83) years and endometrial cancer scheduled for surgical treatment. Mean BMI was 31.38 ± 8.78 (range 19.03-65.97) kg/m2. The data were collected based on a questionnaire consisting of 19 questions concerning the patient's perception of robotic surgery before the procedure. Patients with a family history of neoplastic diseases indicate precision of movements as the most important reason for choosing robotic surgery (p = 0.0035). Patients after surgery procedures in the past named shorter hospitalization as a major benefit (p = 0.0037). Patients who chose robotic surgery for financial reasons stressed the cosmetic effect as a priority (p = 0.0319). Shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, enlarged view, and good visualization were statistically significant reasons for choosing robotic surgery (p < 0.05). Women who consider work, good material status, and well-being as the most important aspects of their lives cited the cosmetic effect as a benefit of robotic surgery (p = 0.0029 vs. p = 0.0074 vs. p = 0.01745, respectively). In the follow-up after operations, no patients regretted choosing robotic surgery. Good visualization, precise movements, less blood loss, and cosmetic effects are the most frequent reasons for choosing robotic surgery. Even patients after other types of surgery in the past decided on robot-assisted radical hysterectomy because of the clear benefits of this approach.

[Robot-assisted surgery - Progress or expensive toy? : Matched-pair comparative analysis of robot-assisted cholecystectomy vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy]

AIM AND METHODS

By means of a matched-pair analysis comparing data obtained from laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RAC), the value of both methods as well as the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches were elucidated. The consideration was carried out by evaluation of postoperative surgical results, a cost analysis and a subjective survey of the patients using a questionnaire. Thus, from the 35 consecutive RAC, 35 (parallel) retrospectively matched pairs were established.

RESULTS

Postoperative surgical results did not show any significant differences between LC and RAC. In the individual assessment by each patient, there were also no significant differences; however, there was a tendency towards the assessment of the RAC to be slightly worse. A striking difference was found with respect to the cost analysis at the time of surgery.

CONCLUSION

The RAC operation alone is significantly more expensive compared to LC with respect to maintenance and acquisition costs. In addition, RAC can at present not be completely reimbursed under the current German diagnosis-related system. The postulated advantages of RAC comprise mainly the precise preparation within narrow confinements and the favorable ergonomic handling for the surgeon. The basic prerequisites are control of the costs and a reasonable reflection in the current reimbursement system.

Laparoscopic uncinate process first pancreatoduodenectomy-feasibility study of a modified 'artery first' approach to pancreatic head cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to discuss the feasibility of laparoscopic 'uncinate first' pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

The analysis included prospectively collected data from 12 consecutive patients undergoing elective pure laparoscopic 'uncinate process first' pancreatoduodenectomy (Group 1). They were compared with patients previously operated on with a classical laparoscopic approach (Group 2). The primary outcome was the quality of the resected specimen (lymph node (LN) yield, R0 rate, involved resection margins). Secondary outcomes were perioperative parameters.

RESULTS

The LN yield in Group 1 was 19.3 and in Group 2 it was 13.9 (p = 0.03). R0 resection rates did not vary (66.7 vs. 63.2%, p = 0.84). Although the involvement of the superior mesenteric artery margin and uncinate process margin seemed lower in Group 1, the difference was not significant. Total operative time (467 vs. 425 min, p = 0.13) and resection time (221 vs. 232 min, p = 0.34) were similar in both groups. The estimated blood loss in Group 1 was 408 ml, whereas in Group 2 it was 392 ml (p = 0.33). Complication rates were 66.7% in Group 1 and 63.2% in Group 2 (p = 0.84). Median length of stay was 9 days in both groups (p = 0.36). Postoperative complication rates did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic uncinate first approach is a feasible method for pancreatic head neoplasms. Achieved quality of the specimen is comparable with the traditional laparoscopic approach, whereas intra- and postoperative course is not inferior. However, further studies on larger cohorts are required to fully establish whether the novel approach has potential advantages over classical access in pancreatic head cancer.

[Robotics in the operating room : Out of the niche into widespread application]

In the last few years robotic surgery has progressed from being confined to a small niche to a widespread application in routine visceral surgery; however, evidence for superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy from randomized studies with a sufficient number of patients is still lacking in most fields of visceral surgery. For complex operations that necessitate an extensive reconstruction phase, such as pancreatectomy, gastrectomy and esophagectomy, there is a potential benefit for the permanent and justified use of robotic surgery. Even in operations where delicate nerve preparation and radical surgical resection are simultaneously necessary, such as rectal resection, robotic surgery may provide certain benefits. In the long term there is a great potential for the integration of innovative techniques, such as navigation or other medical imaging procedures into robotic surgery, which can currently only partially be estimated. Care must be taken to avoid premature euphoria; however, due to the assumed great potential there is an urgent need for randomized studies to evaluate the possible benefits of robotic surgical techniques in visceral surgery in order to generate evidence for the welfare of patients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy - The first meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.

Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies

Pancreatic surgery for malignancy is recognized as challenging for the surgeons and risky for the patients due to consistent perioperative morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the oncological long-term results are largely disappointing, even for those patients who experience an uneventfully hospital stay. Nevertheless, surgery still remains the cornerstone of a multidisciplinary treatment for pancreatic cancer. In order to maximize the benefits of surgery, the advent of both laparoscopy and robotics has led many surgeons to treat pancreatic cancers with these new methodologies. The reduction of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and pain, together with a shorter interval between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy, represent the potential advantages over conventional surgery. Lastly, a better cosmetic result, although not crucial in any cancerous patient, could also play a role by improving overall well-being and patient self-perception. The laparoscopic approach to pancreatic surgery is, however, difficult in inexperienced hands and requires a dedicated training in both advanced laparoscopy and pancreatic surgery. The recent large diffusion of the da Vinci(®) robotic platform seems to facilitate many of the technical maneuvers, such as anastomotic biliary and pancreatic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomy, and vascular sutures. The two main pancreatic operations, distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, are approachable by a minimally invasive path, but more limited interventions such as enucleation are also feasible. Nevertheless, a word of caution should be taken into account when considering the increasing costs of these newest technologies because the main concerns regarding these are the maintenance of all oncological standards and the lack of long-term follow-up. The purpose of this review is to examine the evidence for the use of minimally invasive surgery in pancreatic cancer (and less aggressive tumors), with particular attention to the oncological results and widespread reproducibility of each technique.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Time for a Randomized Controlled Trial? Results of an All-inclusive National Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare at a national level, the early and long-term outcome of distal pancreatectomy (DP) performed by laparoscopy (LapDP) or open surgery (OpenDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND DATA

LapDP is feasible and safe for benign conditions but its use for PDAC is controversial.

METHODS

French healthcare databases were screened to identify all patients who had undergone LapDP or OpenDP for PDAC between 2007 and 2012. Endpoints were (i) 90-day mortality, (ii) morbidity, (iii) transfusion rate, (iv) length of hospital stay (LOS), and (v) long-term survival. Logistic regression and adjusted Cox models were used to compare LapDP and OpenDP with regard to these outcomes. Confounders included (i) patients' characteristics; (ii) associated surgical procedures; and (iii) characteristics of the hospital. Performance of the resulting models was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

Over the 6-year period, there were 2753 operations for PDAC: 2406 OpenDP and 347 LapDP (12.6%). The overall 90-day mortality rate was 5.2%; median LOS was 15 days, and median survival was 38 months. LapDP was not correlated with 90-day mortality but was associated with reduced pleuropulmonary morbidity (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, P = 0.028), blood transfusion (OR 0.44, P = 0.001), and LOS (P = 0.042), and was associated with increased survival (P = 0.0007).

CONCLUSIONS

LapDP has not been adopted widely for PDAC. The early and long-term results of LapDP as currently practiced are as good as those of OpenDP. The next step in the evaluation of LapDP should be a randomized controlled trial (RCT), but such a trial is likely to suffer from insufficient recruitment.