Search

Robotic platforms are increasingly utilized in surgery, offering unique technical advantages, though there is a scarcity of difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for these procedures. DSS aids in understanding operative complexities and enhancing preoperative planning. With IRB approval, data were collected on 200 consecutive adult patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy at a high-volume institution from 2019 to 2022. Linear regression was employed on clinical variables to analyze operative time and estimated blood loss as markers of surgical complexity. Weighted scoring system was developed using significant linear coefficient values, and an ANOVA analysis created the difficulty-level grouping system. Significant variables affecting operative time and/or EBL included: history of alcoholism, preoperative endoscopic intervention, tumor size, nodal disease on preoperative imaging, pancreatic duct dilation. These factors created the DSS ranging from 0 to 33. Group 1 (0–8, n = 9), Group 2 (9–20, n = 145), Group 3 (21–26, n = 37), and Group 4 (27–33, n = 9) showed significant differences in age, history of alcoholism, preoperative jaundice, tumor size, nodal disease, and operative metrics. Our novel DSS for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy effectively predicts intraoperative challenges and aids in preoperative planning. Future steps include validating the system internally and externally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sought to identify the primary reasons for hospital readmissions and examine patient outcomes and associated costs following readmission after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 435 patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2012 and 2024. Readmitted patients within 30 days post-surgery were compared to non-readmitted patients using Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). In the study cohort, 86 patients (20%) were readmitted within 30 days after surgery. No significant differences were found in patient demographics or outcomes. The most common causes for readmission included insufficient patient education (n = 18), infection (n = 16), and gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 13). The readmitted cohort had significantly higher costs at $40,452 (± 30,724) compared to $31,438 (± 31,546.2) for non-readmitted patients (p < 0.001). Median survival was similar between the two groups (36 vs. 34 months, p = 0.88). Although some readmissions are inevitable, this study provides compelling evidence that inadequate patient education is a primary contributor to increased healthcare costs. The lack of sufficient education appears to have no mitigating effect on patient outcomes. Implementing a proactive, thorough patient education approach, combined with improved emergency department awareness, presents a promising strategy for reducing costly readmissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$−11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]