Robotic-assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis

A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures

This study aims to conduct a systematic review of full economic analyses of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in adults' thoracic and abdominopelvic indications. Authors used Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed to conduct a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Fully published economic articles in English were included. Methodology and reporting quality were assessed using standardized tools. Majority of studies (28/33) were on oncology procedures. Radical prostatectomy was the most reported procedure (16/33). Twenty-eight studies used quality-adjusted life years, and five used complication rates as outcomes. Nine used primary and 24 studies used secondary data. All studies used modeling. In 81% of studies (27/33), RAS was cost-effective or potentially cost-effective compared to comparator procedures, including radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. Societal perspective, longer-term time-horizon, and larger volumes favored RAS. Cost-drivers were length of stay and equipment cost. From societal and payer perspectives, robotic-assisted surgery is a cost-effective strategy for thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Clinical trial registration This study is a systematic review with no intervention, not a clinical trial.

Laparoscopic versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Short and Long-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer is widely accepted and routinely performed. However, it is still debated whether the laparoscopic approach is a valid alternative to open gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study is to compare short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LG) and open (OG) total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with AGC.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients who underwent LG and OG for ACG between January 2015 and December 2021. Primary endpoints were the following: recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival, 3-year and 5-year overall survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to compare variables influencing outcomes and survival.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients included: fifty-three OG and thirty-nine LG. No difference in morbidity and mortality. LG was associated with lower recurrence rates (OG 22.6% versus LG 12.8%, p = 0.048). No differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival; 3-year disease-free survival was improved in the LG group on the univariate analysis but not after the multivariate one. LG was associated with longer operative time, lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Lymph node yield was higher in LG.

CONCLUSION

LG for AGC seems to provide satisfactory clinical and oncological outcomes in medium volume centers, improved postoperative results and possibly lower recurrence rates.

Benefits of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer

We read with great interest the article that retrospectively analyzed 814 patients with primary gastric cancer, who underwent minimally invasive R0 gastrectomy between 2009 and 2014 by grouping them in laparoscopic vs robotic procedures. The results of the study highlighted that age, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, gastrectomy type and pathological T and N status were the main prognostic factors of minimally invasive gastrectomy and showed how the robotic approach may improve long-term outcomes of advanced gastric cancer. According to most of the current literature, robotic surgery is associated with a statistically longer operating time when compared to open and laparoscopic surgery; however, looking at the adequacy of resection, defined by negative surgical margins and number of lymph nodes removed, it seems that robotic surgery gives better results in terms of the 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival. The robotic approach to gastric cancer surgery aims to overcome the difficulties and technical limitations of laparoscopy in major surgery. The three-dimensional vision, articulation of the instruments and good ergonomics for the surgeon allow for accurate and precise movements which facilitate the complex steps of surgery such as lymph node dissection, esophagus-jejunal anastomosis packaging and reproducing the technical accuracy of open surgery. If the literature, as well as the analyzed study, offers us countless data regarding the short-term oncological results of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, satisfactory data on long-term follow-up are lacking, so future studies are necessary.

The impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage and to compare RAG with laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy using a short-term evaluation.

METHODS

Between September 2016 and December 2018, 111 consecutive distal gastric cancer patients who were candidates for RAG or LAG were prospectively enrolled. Operative findings, morbidity, oncological findings, and the learning curve were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients underwent RAG with the da Vinci Si robot system, and eighty-one patients underwent LAG. Blood loss was lower during RAG than during LAG (133.80 ± 95.28 vs. 178.83 ± 98.37, P = 0.046). The operative time for RAG was significantly longer (304.45 ± 42.08 vs. 281.17 ± 32.69, P = 0.015). The number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) was greater (37.33 ± 8.25 vs. 32.78 ± 5.98, P = 0.003) with RAG. Notably, RAG had an advantage in the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs (3.56 ± 1.76 vs. 2.78 ± 1.30, P = 0.038; 2.48 ± 0.93 vs. 1.99 ± 0.84, P = 0.015, respectively). Severe complications were less frequent in the RAG group (7 (8.6%) vs. 1 (3.3%), P = 0.003). No significant differences in terms of postoperative recovery were found between the two groups. The learning curve for RAG showed that the cumulative sum value decreased from the 10th case, while it decreased from the 28th case in the LAG group.

CONCLUSION

By means of robotic technology, RAG is better than LAG for the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs and for the alleviation of surgical trauma, and the technique is learned more rapidly during the preliminary stage than the LAG technique.

More work is needed on cost-utility analyses of robotic-assisted surgery

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.

METHODS

Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear." Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES)

Background

The studies which address the impact of costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic approach on quality of life (cost-effectiveness studies) are scares in general surgery.

Methods

The Spanish national study on cost-effectiveness differences among robotic and laparoscopic surgery (ROBOCOSTES) is designed as a prospective, multicentre, national, observational study. The aim is to determine in which procedures robotic surgery is more cost-effective than laparoscopic surgery. Several surgical operations and patient populations will be evaluated (distal pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, inguinal hernioplasty, rectal resection for cancer, Heller cardiomiotomy and Nissen procedure).

Discussion

The results of this study will demonstrate which treatment (laparoscopic or robotic) and in which population is more cost-effective. This study will also assess the impact of previous surgical experience on main outcomes.