Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2019

27.11.2018 | Original Article

Nationwide outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open hepatectomy

verfasst von: Nicholas Cortolillo, Chetan Patel, Joshua Parreco, Srinivas Kaza, Alvaro Castillo

Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The safety of hepatectomy continues to improve and it holds a key role in the management of benign and malignant hepatic lesions. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to hepatectomy are increasingly utilized. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open approaches to hepatectomy and to determine the national nonelective postoperative readmission rate, including readmission to other hospitals. The Nationwide Readmission Database from 2013 to 2014 was queried for all patients undergoing hepatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomies were compared to patients undergoing open hepatectomy. Multivariate logistic regression was implemented to determine the odds ratios (OR) for non-elective readmission within 45 days. There were 10,870 patients who underwent hepatectomy from 2013 to 2014 and 724 (6.7%) were approached with laparoscopic or robotic technique. The robotic cohort had lower mean cost of the index admission ($24,983 ± $18,329 vs. open $32,391 ± $31,983, p < 0.001, 95% CI − 18,292 to 534), shorter LOS (4.5 ± 3.8 vs. lap 6.8 ± 6.0 vs. open 7.6 ± 7.7 days, p < 0.01), and were less likely to be readmitted within 45 days (7.9% vs. 13.0% lap vs. 13.8% open, p = 0.05). The robotic cohort was slightly younger (mean age 57.5 ± 13.5 vs. lap 60.1 ± 13.8 vs. open 58.9 ± 13.7, p < 0.05), and no significant differences were seen by Charlson Comorbidity Index. Anastomosis of hepatic duct to GI tract carried higher odds of mortality (OR 2.87, p < 0.01) and higher odds of readmission (OR 1.40, p < 0.01). LOS above 7 days increased odds of readmission (OR 2.24, p < 0.01). Nearly one-fifth of patients readmitted after hepatectomy present to a different hospital. Robotic hepatectomy was associated with favorable cost and readmission outcomes compared to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy patients, despite similar patient comorbid burdens and patient’s age. Length of stay over 7 days and anastomosis of hepatic duct to GI tract are strong risk factors for readmission and mortality.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Dimick JB, Wainess RM, Cowan JA, Upchurch GR Jr, Knol JA, Colletti LM (2004) National trends in the use and outcomes of hepatic resection. J Am Coll Surg 199(1):31–38CrossRefPubMed Dimick JB, Wainess RM, Cowan JA, Upchurch GR Jr, Knol JA, Colletti LM (2004) National trends in the use and outcomes of hepatic resection. J Am Coll Surg 199(1):31–38CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ejaz A et al (2014) A comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery for hepatic and pancreatic resections using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Surgery 156:538–547CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ejaz A et al (2014) A comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery for hepatic and pancreatic resections using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Surgery 156:538–547CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Luo L, Zou H, Yao Y, Huang X (2015) Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: short- and long-term outcomes comparison. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:18772–18778PubMedPubMedCentral Luo L, Zou H, Yao Y, Huang X (2015) Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: short- and long-term outcomes comparison. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:18772–18778PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Franken C, Lau B, Putchakayala K, DiFronzo LA (2014) Comparison of short-term outcomes in laparoscopic vs open hepatectomy. JAMA Surg 149:941–946CrossRefPubMed Franken C, Lau B, Putchakayala K, DiFronzo LA (2014) Comparison of short-term outcomes in laparoscopic vs open hepatectomy. JAMA Surg 149:941–946CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Thornblade LW, Shi X, Ruiz A, Flum DR, Park JO (2017) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery and conventional approaches for major or challenging hepatectomy. J Am Coll Surg 224:851–861CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Thornblade LW, Shi X, Ruiz A, Flum DR, Park JO (2017) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery and conventional approaches for major or challenging hepatectomy. J Am Coll Surg 224:851–861CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Bagante F et al (2016) Minimally invasive vs. open hepatectomy: a comparative analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1608–1617CrossRefPubMed Bagante F et al (2016) Minimally invasive vs. open hepatectomy: a comparative analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1608–1617CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Spolverato G et al (2014) Readmission incidence and associated factors after a hepatic resection at a major hepato-pancreatico-biliary academic centre. HPB 16:972–978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Spolverato G et al (2014) Readmission incidence and associated factors after a hepatic resection at a major hepato-pancreatico-biliary academic centre. HPB 16:972–978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Schneider EB et al (2012) Patient readmission and mortality after surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies. J Am Coll Surg 215:607–615CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schneider EB et al (2012) Patient readmission and mortality after surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies. J Am Coll Surg 215:607–615CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Lucas DJ, Sweeney JF, Pawlik TM (2014) The timing of complications impacts risk of readmission after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. Surgery 155:945–953CrossRefPubMed Lucas DJ, Sweeney JF, Pawlik TM (2014) The timing of complications impacts risk of readmission after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. Surgery 155:945–953CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Barbas AS et al (2013) Examining reoperation and readmission after hepatic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 216:915–923CrossRefPubMed Barbas AS et al (2013) Examining reoperation and readmission after hepatic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 216:915–923CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kelly KN, Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Monson JRT, Fleming FJ (2014) Risk factors associated with 30-day postoperative readmissions in major gastrointestinal resections. J Gastrointest Surg 18:35–43 (discussion 43–44) CrossRefPubMed Kelly KN, Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Monson JRT, Fleming FJ (2014) Risk factors associated with 30-day postoperative readmissions in major gastrointestinal resections. J Gastrointest Surg 18:35–43 (discussion 43–44) CrossRefPubMed
13.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Scally CP, Thumma JR, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2015) Impact of surgical quality improvement on payments in medicare patients. Ann Surg 262:249–252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Scally CP, Thumma JR, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2015) Impact of surgical quality improvement on payments in medicare patients. Ann Surg 262:249–252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Alexandrescu S et al (2017) Comparative analysis between simultaneous resection and staged resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases—a single center experience on 300 consecutive patients. Chirurgia 112:278–288CrossRefPubMed Alexandrescu S et al (2017) Comparative analysis between simultaneous resection and staged resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases—a single center experience on 300 consecutive patients. Chirurgia 112:278–288CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Abelson JS et al (2017) Simultaneous resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastasis: the new standard of care? J Gastrointest Surg 21:975–982CrossRefPubMed Abelson JS et al (2017) Simultaneous resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastasis: the new standard of care? J Gastrointest Surg 21:975–982CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Daskalaki D et al (2017) Financial impact of the robotic approach in liver surgery: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs between the robotic and open technique in a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27:375–382CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Daskalaki D et al (2017) Financial impact of the robotic approach in liver surgery: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs between the robotic and open technique in a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27:375–382CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Sham JG et al (2016) Efficacy and cost of robotic hepatectomy: is the robot cost-prohibitive? J Robot Surg 10:307–313CrossRefPubMed Sham JG et al (2016) Efficacy and cost of robotic hepatectomy: is the robot cost-prohibitive? J Robot Surg 10:307–313CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Salloum C et al (2017) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy: analysis of surgical outcomes and costs by a propensity score matched cohort study. World J Surg 41:516–524CrossRefPubMed Salloum C et al (2017) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy: analysis of surgical outcomes and costs by a propensity score matched cohort study. World J Surg 41:516–524CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Croner RS, Perrakis A, Hohenberger W, Brunner M (2016) Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: a comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:707–714CrossRefPubMed Croner RS, Perrakis A, Hohenberger W, Brunner M (2016) Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: a comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:707–714CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu Y-D et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center. Langenbecks Arch Surg 399:1039–1045CrossRefPubMed Yu Y-D et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center. Langenbecks Arch Surg 399:1039–1045CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen P-D et al (2017) Robotic major hepatectomy: is there a learning curve? Surgery 161:642–649CrossRefPubMed Chen P-D et al (2017) Robotic major hepatectomy: is there a learning curve? Surgery 161:642–649CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Levi Sandri GB et al (2017) The use of robotic surgery in abdominal organ transplantation: a literature review. Clin Transpl 2017:31 Levi Sandri GB et al (2017) The use of robotic surgery in abdominal organ transplantation: a literature review. Clin Transpl 2017:31
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen P-D et al (2016) Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: a pure, minimally invasive approach. Liver Transpl 22:1509–1518CrossRefPubMed Chen P-D et al (2016) Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: a pure, minimally invasive approach. Liver Transpl 22:1509–1518CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Nota CLMA, Molenaar IQ, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IHM, Hagendoorn J (2016) Robotic liver resection including the posterosuperior segments: initial experience. J Surg Res 206:133–138CrossRefPubMed Nota CLMA, Molenaar IQ, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IHM, Hagendoorn J (2016) Robotic liver resection including the posterosuperior segments: initial experience. J Surg Res 206:133–138CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Magistri P, Tarantino G, Ballarin R, Coratti A, Di Benedetto F (2017) Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: a pure, minimally invasive approach. Liver Transpl 23:857–858CrossRefPubMed Magistri P, Tarantino G, Ballarin R, Coratti A, Di Benedetto F (2017) Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: a pure, minimally invasive approach. Liver Transpl 23:857–858CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Montalti R, Scuderi V, Patriti A, Vivarelli M, Troisi R (2016) I. Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison. Surg Endosc 30:1004–1013CrossRefPubMed Montalti R, Scuderi V, Patriti A, Vivarelli M, Troisi R (2016) I. Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison. Surg Endosc 30:1004–1013CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Nationwide outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open hepatectomy
verfasst von
Nicholas Cortolillo
Chetan Patel
Joshua Parreco
Srinivas Kaza
Alvaro Castillo
Publikationsdatum
27.11.2018
Verlag
Springer London
Erschienen in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0896-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.