Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic pancreatectomy: A nationwide, population-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection is comparable to open pancreatic resection; however, cost-effectiveness analyses of laparoscopic pancreatic resection are scarce. The authors performed a population-based study investigating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatic resection versus open pancreatic resection.

METHODS

Data from 9,256 patients who received pancreaticoduodenectomy (66.8%) and distal pancreatectomy (33.2%) from 2016 to 2018 were retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Events after pancreatectomy were categorized as no complication, complication, and death. Probabilities of each event and average cost during index admission and 1 year were utilized to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost difference between two interventions divided by quality-adjusted life year. Quality-adjusted life year, a function of length and quality of life, was measured with utility values determined by researching literature.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed in 12.4% of pancreaticoduodenectomies and 53.4% of distal pancreatectomies. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection was associated with an increase of 0.0022 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0023 quality-adjusted life years for 1 year compared with open pancreatic resection. The incremental cost was $321 for index admission and -$1,414 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $147,429 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$614,965 per quality-adjusted life year gained for 1 year. For distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection improved 0.0131 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0285 quality-adjusted life years for index admission. The incremental cost was -$1,240 for index admission and -$5,875 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$94,519 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$206,351 for 1 year.

CONCLUSION

laparoscopic pancreatic resection was a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatic resection for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, except for the higher cost of index admission for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Distal Pancreatectomy Using Propensity Score Analysis: A Real-world Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the distal pancreas from a real-world database.

BACKGROUND

Reports on the benefits of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy include 2 randomized controlled trials; however, large-scale, real-world data are scarce.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy for benign or malignant pancreatic tumors from April 2008 to May 2020 from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. We performed propensity score analyses to compare the inhospital mortality, morbidity, readmission rate, reoperation rate, length of postoperative stay, and medical cost between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

From 5502 eligible patients, we created a pseudopopulation of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with lower inhospital mortality during the period of admission (0.0% vs 0.7%, P <0.001) and within 30 days (0.0% vs 0.2%, P =0.001), incidence of reoperation during the period of admission (0.7% vs 1.7%, P =0.018), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0.4% vs 2.0%, P <0.001), ileus (1.1% vs 2.8%, P =0.007), and shorter postoperative length of stay (17 vs 20 d, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The propensity score analysis revealed that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with better outcomes than open surgery in terms of inhospital mortality, reoperation rate, postoperative length of stay, and incidence of postoperative complications such as postpancreatectomy hemorrhage and ileus.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is more cost-effective than open resection: results from a Swedish randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is being implemented worldwide. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care perspective.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the randomized controlled trial LAPOP, where 60 patients were randomized to open or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. For the follow-up of two years, resource use from a health care perspective was recorded, and health-related quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L. The per-patient mean cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using nonparametric bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included in the analysis. The mean health care costs were lower, €3863 (95% CI: -€8020 to €385), for the laparoscopic group. Postoperative quality of life improved with laparoscopic resection and resulted in a gain in QALYs of 0.08 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.25). The laparoscopic group had lower costs and improved QALYs in 79% of bootstrap samples. With a cost-per-QALY threshold of €50 000, 95.4% of the bootstrap samples were in favour of laparoscopic resection.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with numerically lower health care costs and improvements in QALYs compared with the open approach. The results support the ongoing transition from open to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies.

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

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.

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups.

The Role of Laparoscopic Surgery in Localized Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PNETs) are a rare and heterogeneous group of tumours with various clinical manifestations and biological behaviours. They represent approximately 2-4% of all pancreatic tumours, with an incidence of 2-3 cases per million people. PNETs are classified clinically as non-functional or functional, and pancreatic resection is recommended for lesions greater than 2 cm. The surgical approach can involve "typical" and "atypical" resections depending on the number, size and location of the tumour. Typical resections include pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy enucleation and, rarely, total pancreatectomy. Atypical resections comprise central pancreatectomies or enucleations. Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been proven to be technically feasible and safe in high-volume and specialized centres with highly skilled laparoscopic surgeons, with consolidated benefits for patients in the postoperative course. However, open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery remains to have a high rate of complications; there is no specific technical contraindication to minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, but an appropriate patient selection is crucial to obtain satisfactory clinical and oncological outcomes.

Combining Appleby with RAMPS - Laparoscopic Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy with Celiac Trunk Resection

BACKGROUND

Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) minimizes the risk of a positive retroperitoneal margin and maximizes lymph node harvest in distal pancreatic cancers.1-7 In those with celiac trunk involvement, resection of the celiac trunk (modified Appleby procedure) is a surgical option in which postoperative liver perfusion relies on blood flow via superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and gastroduodenal artery (GDA).8, 9 PATIENT: A 66-year-old male was diagnosed with a 3.8 × 2.5 cm pancreatic body adenocarcinoma abutting the celiac trunk. Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was initiated with a uniquely good response.

TECHNIQUE

Prior to surgery, a novel preoperative 3D simulation technique accounting for organ displacement during pneumoperitoneum with the goal of optimizing port placement and surgical decision making was employed. At surgery, a RAMPS procedure was performed with the renal vessels and adrenal gland being dissected first (reversed from typical open approach). Following dissection along the SMA towards the celiac axis, desmoplastic reaction enveloping the celiac trunk necessitated its resection. Arterial liver perfusion was confirmed with intraoperative ultrasound.

CONCLUSION

L-RAMPS and modified Appleby procedure is a curative option for patients with distal pancreatic cancers that invade the celiac trunk and in whom the tumor biology is well controlled. A preplanned approach with 3D reconstruction accounting for organ displacement due to pneumoperitoneum optimizes surgical decision making and port placement for visual alignment caudally along the SMA.

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

The North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Consensus Paper on the Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The group reviewed a series of questions of specific interest to surgeons taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and for each, the available literature was reviewed. What follows are these reviews for each question followed by recommendations of the panel.

Robotic assisted laparoscopic completion pancreatectomy for recurrent intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm after previous open pancreatoduodenectomy: A case report and literature review

Completion pancreatectomy (CP), is an effective, and potentially curative option for selected patients with local recurrence of pancreatic neoplasms in the remnant pancreas after initial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Traditionally CP has been performed via the open approach. Reports of minimally-invasive CP particularly after previous open PD are rare. We present a case of a 72-year old male who previously underwent open PD 5 years ago for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) with high grade dysplasia in the uncinate process. He had multifocal IPMN and low-risk lesions in the body and tail were managed conservatively. On routine surveillance, the cyst in the body was noted to be increasing in size with the development of a non-enhancing solid component confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent endoscopic ultrasonography. The patient underwent successful robotic assisted laparoscopic completion pancreatectomy. Final histology confirmed a recurrent IPMN with low-to-intermediate grade dysplasia. The postoperative recovery was uneventful and he was discharged on postoperative day 9.