Search

Enucleation has widely spread as an alternative strategy in the treatment of small pancreatic tumours and cystic lesions. To date there are limited data on perioperative outcomes after pancreatic enucleation performed using a minimally invasive robotic technique, particularly regarding the risk factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). We perform a comparative study of robotic pancreatic enucleation (RPE) and open enucleation (OPE) with the aim of evaluating clinical and cost-effective outcomes.This is a case-matched analysis of patients who underwent robotic and open pancreatic enucleation performed at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid, from October 2014 to December 2021. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. Clinicopathologic characteristics and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analysed. Two groups of demographically similar patients were analysed: the robotic group (n = 20) and the open group (n = 20). The patient characteristics of the two groups have been compared. From February 2015, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are also included and prospectively recorded in the database and used to measure the effectiveness of the treatment.A total of 20 RPE and 20 OPE have been included. The incremental cost of the robotic approach versus open was €2617.85(CI 95% 1601.48; 3634.24) and the incremental utility was 0.0879 QALYs (CI 95% 0.0834; 0.0925). The estimated ICER for patients was €29,782.13 (CI 95% 17,313.29; 43,576.01) per QALY gained. Robotic resection resulted a shorter postoperative hospital stay, less wound infections, faster recovery diet and a similar operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Pathological data were similar for both procedures.RPE resulted in a shorter hospital stay and less blood loss and morbidity, comparable with the outcomes of open enucleation. RPE may also be acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Complete surgical resection for locally advanced rectal cancer is the standard treatment after a clinical complete response following chemoradiotherapy. However, some novel clinical approaches could achieve better functional results, such as Robotic Resection, or avoiding surgical procedure and incrementing surveillance intensity, called Watch-and-Wait policy. We use computational techniques to compare these clinical approaches using quality adjusted life years (QALYs).A Markov decision analytic model was used in order to perform a cost-utility analysis, comparing standard resection (SR), Robotic Rectal Resection (RRR) and Watch-and-Wait (WW) strategies, estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY to be gained from patients reaching a clinical complete response to chemoradiotherapy. Model parameter estimates were informed by previously published studies comparing WW to SR and from our database of RRR versus SR. Lifetime incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated among approaches, and a sensitivity analysis were performed in order to estimate the model uncertainty. A willingness-to-pay of per one additional QALY gained was measured to determine which strategies would be most cost-effective.WW is a dominating option over SR ( -75,486. 75 € and +2.04 QALYs) and RRR ( -75,486. 75 € and +0.41 QALYs). The cost-effectiveness plane shows that WW does not always dominate over RRR or SR. WW saves costs in 99.98% of the simulations when compared with either SR or RRR but only 86.9% and 55.38% (respectively) of these fall within the SR quadrant. WW is only more effective than SR 55% of the time which implies a significant uncertainty due to the high utility value assigned to cCR after chemoradiotherapy in the RRR alternative.This study provides data of cost-effectiveness differences among Standard Surgery, Watch-and-Wait and Robotic Resection approaches in clinical complete response in locally advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, showing a benefit for Watch-and-Wait policy.

Robotic approach is already a new technological system in surgery and its potential advantages such as ergonomics, reduced tremor, 3D view and improved instruments movements have been well described (1,2). Concerning the current literature, the studies addressing the robotic benefits on left pancreatectomies are few. However, it has been showed that robotic distal pancreatectomy is both feasible and safe as well as the laparoscopic and the standard open approach. Although, there is a lack of high-level economic studies comparing these techniques (3-6).

AIM The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP). MATERIAL AND METHODS In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020. RESULTS The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.18, 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: -2.62, 95% CI: -3.38 to -1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings. CONCLUSION Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.

Aim There is no study in the literature that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). We performed a comparative study of RDP and LDP with the aim of evaluating clinical and cost-effective outcomes. Material and methods This is an observational, comparative prospective nonrandomized study. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness to pay of €20 000 and €30 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost-effective. Results A total of 31 RDP and 28 LDP have been included. The overall mean total cost was similar in both groups (RDP: €9712.15 versus LDP: €9424.68; P > .5). Mean QALYs for RDP (0.652) was higher than that associated with LDP (0.59) (P > .5). Conclusion This study seems to provide data of cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP approaches, showing some benefits for RDP.

Objective The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and cost-effective outcomes of the open Lichtenstein repair (OL) and laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair for bilateral inguinal hernias. Summary background data A cost-effective analysis of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair is still not well addressed, especially regarding bilateral hernia. Methods This is a clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis within a randomized prospective study conducted at Sanchinarro University Hospital.Cases of primary, reducible bilateral inguinal hernia were included and randomized using a simple randomization program.The outcome parameters included surgical and postoperative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio. Results Between March 2013 and January 2017, 165 patients were enrolled in this study (81 of them underwent TAPP and 84 OL).The TAPP procedure had less early postoperative pain (P = 0.037), a shorter length of stay (P = 0.001), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) when compared with the OL approach. The overall cost of TAPP procedure was higher compared with the OL cost (1,683.93O vs 1192.83O, P = 0.027). The mean QALYs at 1 year for TAPP (0.8094) was higher than that associated with OL (0.6765) (P = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 O and 30,000 O, there was a 95.38% and 97.96% probability that TAPP was more cost-effective relative to OL. Conclusions The TAPP procedure for bilateral inguinal hernia appears to be more cost-effective compared with OL.

In the last decade, there have clearly been important changes in the surgical approach of gastric cancer treatment due to an increased interest in the minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS). The higher cost of robotic surgery procedures remains an important issue of debate. The objective of the study is to compare the main operative and clinical outcomes and to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the two techniques. This is a prospective cost-effectiveness and clinical study when comparing the robotic gastrectomy (RG) technique with open gastrectomy (OG) in gastric cancer. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The incremental utility was 0.038 QALYs and the estimated ICER for patients was dominated by robotic approach. The probability that the robotic approach was cost effective was 94.04% and 94.20%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY gained. RG for gastric cancer represents a cost-effective procedure compared with the standard OG.

e19374 Background: Chemoradiotheray (CR) followed by standard Surgical Resection (SR) is the standard treatment for distal locally-advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients after a clinical compete response (cCR). Some novel approach suggested better functional results using robotic rectal resection (RRR) or avoiding surgical procedure, called Watch and Wait (WW) strategy. Methods: A Markov model-based, cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and QALYs per patient was performed to compare SR, RRR and WW strategies for patients achieving a cCR to CRT. Rates of local regrowth, recurrence and distant metastasis were derived from series comparing WW to SR and from our previous comparative study of RRR versus SR. Lifetime incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated between strategies, and sensitivity analysis were performed to study model uncertainly. A willingness-to-pay of 30.000 per Quality Adjusted-Life Year (QALY) was used as a threshold to determine the most cost-effective treatment. Results: The base case 15-years cancer-specific survival was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.5-94.9] on a WW program, compared to 95.9% [95%CI 93.6-97.7] after RRR. WW was dominant relative to RRR with cost savings of $48,566.58 (95%CI $47,635.77 - $49,497.39 ) and incremental QALY of 7.47 (95%CI 1.46 – 7.48). WW was also dominant relative to LRR, with cost savings of $48,764.49 (95%CI $47,768.49 - $49,760.48 ) and incremental QALY of 7.44 (95%CI 7,43 – 7.45). WW remained dominant in sensitivity analysis unless the rate of SR fell to 73.0%). Conclusions: This study provides data of cost-effectiveness differences between SR, RRR, WW approaches in LARC after cCR, showing a benefit for WW.