nach oben

Erschienen in:

27.10.2021

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach

verfasst von: Gregorio Di Franco, Valentina Lorenzoni, Matteo Palmeri, Niccolò Furbetta, Simone Guadagni, Desirée Gianardi, Matteo Bianchini, Luca Emanuele Pollina, Franca Melfi, Domenica Mamone, Carlo Milli, Giulio Di Candio, Giuseppe Turchetti, Luca Morelli

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 6/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course.

Materials and methods

Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared.

Results

No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076).

Conclusions

Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.

Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8:408–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00642443CrossRefPubMed

Yan Q, Xu LB, Ren ZF, Liu C (2020) Robotic versus open pancraticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 34:501–509CrossRefPubMed

Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, Caravaglios G (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.138.7.777CrossRefPubMed

van Oosten AF, Ding D, Habib JR, Irfan A, Schmocker RK, Sereni E, Kinny-Köster B, Wright M, Groot VP, Molenaar IQ, Cameron JL, Makary M, Burkhart RA, Burns WR, Wolfgang CL, He J (2020) Perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-matched analysis to open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-020-04869-zCrossRefPubMed

Shi Y, Jin J, Qiu W, Weng Y, Wang J, Zhao S, Huo Z, Qin K, Wang Y, Chen H, Deng X, Peng C, Shen B (2020) Short-term outcomes after robot-assisted vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy after the learning curve. JAMA Surg 155:389–394. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0021CrossRefPubMed

Torphy RJ, Friedman C, Halpern A, Chapman BC, Ahrendt SS, McCarter MM, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Gleisner A (2019) Comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy across low and high volume centers. Ann Surg 270:1147–1155. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002810CrossRefPubMed

de Rooij T, Lu MZ, Steen MW, Gerhards MF, Dijkgraaf MG, Busch OR, Lips DJ, Festen S, Besselink MG (2016) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 264:257–267. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001660CrossRefPubMed

Sun R, Yu J, Zhang Y, Liang Z, Han X (2020) Perioperative and oncological outcomes following minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07641-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606CrossRefPubMed

10.

Morelli L, Di Franco G, Lorenzoni V, Guadagni S, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, Gianardi D, Bianchini M, Caprili G, Mosca F, Turchetti G, Cuschieri A (2019) Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon’s experience. Surg Endosc 33:1858–1869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9CrossRefPubMed

11.

Di Franco G, Peri A, Lorenzoni V, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, Guadagni S, Gianardi D, Bianchini M, Pollina LE, Melfi F, Mamone D, Milli C, Di Candio G, Turchetti G, Pietrabissa A, Morelli L (2021) Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched cost-analysis between robot-assisted surgery and direct manual laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08332-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Ball CG, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD, Schmidt CM (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148:814–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.027CrossRefPubMed

13.

Joechle K, Conrad C (2018) Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive pancreatic resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 25:291–298CrossRefPubMed

14.

Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Bourdeau T, Jacob K, Thomas J, Przetocki V, Luberice K, Sucandy I (2021) Cost analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy at a high-volume robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery program. J Am Coll Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.12.062CrossRefPubMed

15.

Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, Swan RZ, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB (2016) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 12:554–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1688CrossRef

16.

Kowalsky SJ, Zenati MS, Steve J, Esper SA, Lee KK, Hogg ME, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH (2019) A combination of robotic approach and ERAS pathway optimizes outcomes and cost for pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 269:1138–1145. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002707CrossRefPubMed

17.

Morelli L, Furbetta N, Gianardi D, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Bianchini M, Palmeri M, Masoni C, Di Candio G, Cuschieri A (2020) Use of barbed suture without fashioning the “classical” Wirsung-jejunostomy in a modified end-to-side robotic pancreatojejunostomy. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07991-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Morelli L, Di Franco G, Guadagni S, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, Gianardi D, Del Chiaro M, Di Candio G, Mosca F (2017) Technical details and results of a modified end-to-side technique of pancreatojejunostomy: a personal series of 100 patients. J Gastrointest Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3587-7CrossRefPubMed

19.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.aeCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Yeo CJ, Büchler MW (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)-An International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.001CrossRefPubMed

21.

Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Traverso LW, Yeo CJ, Büchler MW (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005CrossRefPubMed

22.

Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Rahbari NN, Adam R, Capussotti L, Fan ST, Yokoyama Y, Crawford M, Makuuchi M, Christophi C, Banting S, Brooke-Smith M, Usatoff V, Nagino M, Maddern G, Hugh TJ, Vauthey J-N, Greig P, Rees M, Nimura Y, Figueras J, DeMatteo RP, Büchler MW, Weitz J (2011) Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 149:680–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.12.002CrossRefPubMed

23.

Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, Allen P, Andersson R, Asbun HJ, Besselink MG, Conlon K, Del Chiaro M, Falconi M, Fernandez-Cruz L, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, Fingerhut A, Friess H, Gouma DJ, Hackert T, Izbicki J, Lillemoe KD, Neoptolemos JP, Olah A, Schulick R, Shrikhande SV, Takada T, Takaori K, Traverso W, Vollmer CR, Wolfgang CL, Yeo CJ, Salvia R, Buchler M, International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161:584–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014CrossRefPubMed

24.

Schwarz JL, Hogg ME (2021) Current state of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. J Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.26412CrossRefPubMed

25.

Zhang J, Wu WM, You L, Zhao YP (2013) Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1774–1780. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2823-3CrossRefPubMed

26.

Aiolfi A, Lombardo F, Bonitta G, Danelli P, Bona D (2020) Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Updates Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00916-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Peng L, Lin S, Li Y, Xiao W (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 31:3085–3097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5371-2CrossRefPubMed

28.

Di Benedetto F, Ballarin R, Magistri P (2019) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: can results overcome cost-effectiveness prejudices? HepatoBiliary Surg Nutr 8:304–306. https://doi.org/10.21037/hbsn.2019.01.23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Podda M, Gerardi C, Di Saverio S, Marino MV, Davies RJ, Pellino G, Pisanu A (2020) Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 34:2390–2409CrossRefPubMed

30.

Morelli L, Guadagni S, Lorenzoni V, Di Franco G, Cobuccio L, Palmeri M, Caprili G, D’Isidoro C, Moglia A, Ferrari V, Di Candio G, Mosca F, Turchetti G (2016) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon’s experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2631-5CrossRefPubMed

31.

Morelli L, Di Franco G, Lorenzoni V, Guadagni S, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, Gianardi D, Bianchini M, Caprili G, Mosca F, Turchetti G, Cuschieri A (2019) Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon’s experience. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9CrossRefPubMed

32.

Turchetti G, Pierotti F, Palla I, Manetti S, Freschi C, Ferrari V, Cuschieri A (2017) Comparative health technology assessment of robotic-assisted, direct manual laparoscopic and open surgery: a prospective study. Surg Endosc 31:543–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4991-xCrossRefPubMed

33.

Xourafas D, Pawlik TM, Cloyd JM (2018) Independent predictors of increased operative time and hospital length of stay are consistent across different surgical approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 22:1911–1919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3834-6CrossRefPubMed

34.

Zhang W, Huang Z, Zhang J, Che X (2020) Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers. Updates Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00912-5CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lai ECH, Yang GPC, Tang CN (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy—a comparative study. Int J Surg 10:475–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJSU.2012.06.003CrossRefPubMed

36.

Kim HS, Han Y, Kang JS, Kim H, Kim JR, Koon W, Kim S-W, Jang J-Y (2018) Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 25:142–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/JHBP.522CrossRefPubMed

37.

Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, Pacilio CA, Ricciardiello M, Minni F (2018) Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: what is the best “choice”? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies. World J Surg 42:788–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4180-7CrossRefPubMed

38.

Mazzola M, Giani A, Crippa J, Morini L, Zironda A, Bertoglio CL, De Martini P, Magistro C, Ferrari G (2021) Totally laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol 47:674–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJSO.2020.10.036CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F, Iacopi S, Lombardo C, Bernardini J, Amorese G, Insilla AC, Funel N, Campani D, Cappelli C (2019) A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer based on margin status. Surg Endosc 33:234–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00464-018-6301-2CrossRefPubMed

40.

Morelli L, Di Franco G, Guadagni S, Rossi L, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, Gianardi D, Bianchini M, Caprili G, D’Isidoro C, Mosca F, Moglia A, Cuschieri A (2018) Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: case-matched comparison of short-term surgical and functional outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and Si. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5708-5CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach
verfasst von: Gregorio Di Franco
Valentina Lorenzoni
Matteo Palmeri
Niccolò Furbetta
Simone Guadagni
Desirée Gianardi
Matteo Bianchini
Luca Emanuele Pollina
Franca Melfi
Domenica Mamone
Carlo Milli
Giulio Di Candio
Giuseppe Turchetti
Luca Morelli
Publikationsdatum: 27.10.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 6/2022
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08793-4

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

Real-World-Daten sprechen eher für Dupilumab als für Op.

14.05.2024 Rhinosinusitis Nachrichten

Zur Behandlung schwerer Formen der chronischen Rhinosinusitis mit Nasenpolypen (CRSwNP) stehen seit Kurzem verschiedene Behandlungsmethoden zur Verfügung, darunter Biologika, wie Dupilumab, und die endoskopische Sinuschirurgie (ESS). Beim Vergleich der beiden Therapieoptionen war Dupilumab leicht im Vorteil.

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

10.05.2024 Koronare Herzerkrankung Nachrichten

Nach PCI besteht ein erhöhtes Blutungsrisiko, wenn die Behandelten eine verminderte linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion aufweisen. Das Risiko ist umso höher, je stärker die Pumpfunktion eingeschränkt ist.

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Update Chirurgie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

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

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

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

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach