Search

Background Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Methods Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2. Results In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit—RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: − 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue). Conclusions Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.

Purpose The concept of “textbook outcome” (TO) as composite quality measure depicting the ideal surgical has not yet been defined for patients undergoing major hepatectomy (MH) for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). This study sought to propose a uniform definition through a systematic literature review as well as to identify patient- or procedure-related factors influencing TO. Methods In this retrospective study, we analyzed all patients undergoing MH for PHC at our department between January 2005 and August 2019. After conducting a systematic literature search, we defined TO as the absence of 90-day mortality and major complications, no hospital readmission within 90 days after discharge, and no prolonged hospital stay ( Results Of 283 patients, TO was achieved in 67 (24%) patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative biliary drainage was associated with a decreased (OR= 0.405, 95% CI: 0.194–0.845, p=0.016) and left-sided-resection (OR= 1.899, 95% CI: 1.048–3.440, p=0.035) with increased odds for TO. Overall survival (OS) and DFS (disease-free survival) did not differ significantly between the outcome groups (OS: p=0.280, DFS: p=0.735). However, there was a trend towards better overall survival, especially in the late course with TO. Conclusion Our analysis proposed a uniform definition of TO after MH for PHC. We identified left hepatectomy as an independent factor positively influencing TO. In patients where both right- and left-sided resections are feasible, this underlines the importance of a careful selection of patients who are scheduled for right hepatectomy.