Economic evaluation of different routes of surgery for the management of endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Physical and psychological impact of surgery on the operating surgeon

The impact of surgery on the surgeon's well-being encompasses both physical and psychological aspects. Physically, surgeons are at risk of work-related musculoskeletal symptoms due to the nature of their work, and this risk can be impacted by theater environment, equipment design, and workload. Many symptoms will be self-limiting, but work related musculoskeletal symptoms can lead to the development of an injury, which can have far reaching effects, including the need for medical or surgical treatment, time away from work, or a change in clinical duties. Additionally, surgery can place a significant cognitive workload on the lead operator and this can be exacerbated, or alleviated, by the surgical environment, experience of the assistance, surgical modality, and case complexity. Measuring and quantifying the impact of surgery on the surgeon is a challenging undertaking. Tools such as motion capture, physiological markers, including heart rate variability and salivary cortisol, and questionnaires can provide insights into understanding the overall impact of surgery on the surgeon. A holistic approach that incorporates injury prevention strategies, communication, and support, is vital in assessing and mitigating risk factors. Injury prevention assessment tools and interventions that can be used within the busy surgical environment are needed, alongside increased ergonomic awareness. Addressing the impact of surgery on the surgeon is a multifaceted challenge, and long term positive changes can only be sustained with the support of the whole surgical team and healthcare organizations by developing and maintaining a supportive working environment.

Robotic-assisted surgery in high-risk surgical patients with endometrial cancer

Many patients diagnosed with an endometrial cancer are at high-risk for surgery due to factors such as advanced age, raised body mass index or frailty. Minimally-invasive surgery, in particular robotic-assisted, is increasingly used in the surgical management of endometrial cancer however, there are a lack of clinical trials investigating outcomes in high-risk patient populations. This article will review the current evidence and identify areas of uncertainty where future research is needed.

Feasibility and safety of a surgical training program in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: Results of a pilot trial

BACKGROUND

It is widely accepted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and vaginal hysterectomy are less invasive procedures compared to total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). However, rates of TAH remain unreasonably high.

AIM

To pilot-test a model of training for practising obstetricians and gynaecologists (O&Gs) in TLH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Training of participating O&Gs was conducted across four hospitals in Queensland, Australia, while other O&Gs were observed as contemporary controls. Type of hysterectomy, details of the surgery, including adverse events, were collected from hospital medical records.

RESULTS

Eleven O&Gs completed the pre-intervention and intervention training periods, and nine completed the post-intervention follow-up. TLH rates increased from 24% prior to 75% during and 68% after intervention. Overall, the uptake rate of TLH showed a two-fold increase during the intervention period (2.08, 95% CI: 1.16-8.56, P < 0.001) and a 12% increase was retained during the follow-up period (1.12, 95% CI: 0.54-4.02, P = 0.427). Pre-intervention, across all sites, 24% of hysterectomies were performed via TAH by the participating specialist trainees, which decreased to 13% during the intervention and 14% during follow-up. The rate of adverse events decreased from 13.5% at pre-intervention, to 6.4% during and 4.2% post-intervention. By comparison, no change in surgical approach or rate of adverse events was observed in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a formal and structured surgical training program teaching TLH resulted in important benefits to trainees, patients and society in the four trial hospitals.

Regional variations and deprivation are linked to poorer access to laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery: a national study in England

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and now robotic colorectal surgery has rapidly increased in prevalence; however, little is known about how uptake varies by region and sociodemographics. The aim of this study was to quantify the uptake of minimally invasive colorectal surgery (MIS) over time and variations by region, sociodemographics and ethnicity.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of routinely collected healthcare data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics) for all adults having elective colorectal resectional surgery in England from 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2020. Sociodemographics between modalities were compared and the association between sociodemographic factors, region and year on MIS was compared in multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 93,735 patients were included: 52,098 open, 40,622 laparoscopic and 1015 robotic cases. Laparoscopic surgery surpassed open in 2015 but has plateaued; robotic surgery has rapidly increased since 2017, representing 3.2% of cases in 2019. Absolute differences up to 20% in MIS exist between regions, OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.68-1.86) in South Central and OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.72-0.79) in the North West compared to the largest region (West Midlands). MIS was less common in the most compared to least deprived (14.6% of MIS in the most deprived, 24.8% in the least, OR 0.85 95% CI 0.81-0.89), with a greater difference in robotic surgery (13.4% vs 30.5% respectively). Female gender, younger age, less comorbidity, Asian or 'Other/Mixed' ethnicity and cancer indication were all associated with increased MIS.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS has increased over time, with significant regional and socioeconomic variations. With rapid increases in robotic surgery, national strategies for procurement, implementation, equitable distribution and training must be created to avoid worsening health inequalities.

Robotic and laparoscopic gynaecological surgery: a prospective multicentre observational cohort study and economic evaluation in England

OBJECTIVE

To compare the health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) versus conventional 'straight stick' laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in women undergoing hysterectomy as part of their treatment for either suspected or proven gynaecological malignancy.

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Patients aged 16+ undergoing hysterectomy as part of their treatment for gynaecological malignancy at 12 National Health Service (NHS) cancer units and centres in England between August 2017 and February 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

275 patients recruited with 159 RALS, 73 CLS eligible for analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life measure (EORTC). Secondary outcomes included EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) utility, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), NHS costs using pounds sterling (£) 2018-2019 prices and cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness evaluation compared EQ-5D-5L quality adjusted life years and costs between RALS and CLS.

RESULTS

No difference identified between RALS and CLS for EORTC, EQ-5D-5L utility and 6MWT. RALS had unadjusted mean cost difference of £556 (95% CI -£314 to £1315) versus CLS and mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) difference of 0.0024 (95% CI -0.00051 to 0.0057), non-parametric incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £231 667per QALY. For the adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis, RALS dominated CLS with a mean cost difference of -£188 (95% CI -£1321 to £827) and QALY difference of 0.0024 (95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0057).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that RALS versus CLS in women undergoing hysterectomy (after adjusting for differences in morbidity) is cost-effective with lower costs and QALYs. Results are highly sensitive to the usage of robotic hardware with higher usage increasing the probability of cost-effectiveness. Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial would be of benefit to decision-makers to provide further evidence on the cost-effectiveness of RALS versus CLS but may not be practical due to surgical preferences of surgeons and the extensive roll out of RALS.

Survival outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RALS) has gained widespread acceptance in the field of gynecological oncology. However, whether the prognosis of endometrial cancer after RALS is superior to conventional laparoscopy (CLS) and laparotomy (LT) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term survival outcomes of RALS with CLS and LT for endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE and Web of Science) until May 24, 2022, followed by a manual search. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, publications investigating long-term survival outcomes after RALS vs CLS or LT in endometrial cancer patients were collected. The primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Fixed effects models or random effects models were employed to calculate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as appropriate. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed.

RESULTS

RALS and CLS had no difference in OS (HR = 0.962, 95% CI: 0.922-1.004), RFS (HR = 1.096, 95% CI: 0.947-1.296), and DSS (HR = 1.489, 95% CI: 0.713-3.107) for endometrial cancer; however, RALS was significantly associated with favorable OS (HR = 0.682, 95% CI: 0.576-0.807), RFS (HR = 0.793, 95% CI: 0.653-0.964), and DSS (HR = 0.441, 95% CI: 0.298-0.652) when compared with LT. In the subgroup analysis of effect measures and follow-up length, RALS showed comparable or superior RFS/OS to CLS and LT. In early-stage endometrial cancer patients, RALS had similar OS but worse RFS than CLS.

CONCLUSIONS

RALS is safe in the management of endometrial cancer, with long-term oncological outcomes equivalent to CLS and superior to LT.

Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in Western and emerging countries. In 2012, new cancer cases numbered 319,605, and 76,160 cancer deaths were diagnosed worldwide. ECs are usually diagnosed after menopause; 70% of ECs are diagnosed at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and a 5-year overall survival rate of 77%. On the contrary, women with advanced or recurrent disease have extremely poor outcomes because they show a low response rate to conventional chemotherapy. EC is generally considered easy to treat, although it presents a 5-year mortality of 25%. Though the guidelines (GLs) recommend treatment in specialized centers by physicians specializing in gynecologic oncology, most women are managed by general gynecologists, resulting in differences and discrepancies in clinical management. In this paper we reviewed the literature with the aim of highlighting where the treatment of EC patients requires gynecologic oncologists, as suggested by the GLs. Moreover, we sought to identify the causes of the lack of GL adherence, suggesting useful changes to ensure adequate treatment for all EC patients.

Is robotic lobectomy cheaper? A micro-cost analysis

Higher capital costs and operating room costs associated with Lobectomy via Robot Assisted Thoracic Surgery (RATS) have previously been suggested as the principal contributors to the elevated overall cost. This study uses a micro-costing approach to a previous analysis of clinical outcomes of RATS, Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) and Open Lobectomy to evaluate the most significant cost drivers for the higher cost of robot-assisted lobectomy. A micro-costing model was developed to reflect the pathway of patients from day of surgery through the first 30 days following lobectomy. Costs were provided for RATS, VATS and Open approaches. Sensitivity analysis was performed specifically in the area of staff costs. A threshold sensitivity analysis of the overall cost components was also performed. Total cost per case for the RATS approach was €13,321 for the VATS approach €11,567, and for the Open approach €12,582. The overall cost differences were driven primarily by the elevated consumable costs associated with RATS Lobectomy. Capital costs account for a relatively small proportion of the per-case cost difference. This study presents a detailed analysis of the cost drivers for lobectomy, modelled for the three primary surgical approaches. We believe this is a useful tool for surgeons, hospital management, and service commissioning agencies to accurately and comprehensively determine where cost savings can be applied in their programme to improve the cost-effectiveness of RATS lobectomy.