Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic redo antireflux surgery in children: A cost-effectiveness study

Robotic-assisted vs. Laparoscopic Heller's Myotomy for Achalasia in Children

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted Heller-Dor procedure has been proposed as an alternative minimally invasive approach to traditional laparoscopy for the treatment of achalasia in children. Our aim is to compare the effectiveness, safety and associated costs between both procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective single center study was conducted among consecutive children operated for achalasia (Heller-Dor operation) between 2005 and 2021, who were divided into two groups according to the surgical approach: laparoscopic (LAP-group) or robotic (ROB-group). Demographics, clinical features, surgery time, length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complications, long-term outcomes and economic data were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients were included (12 in LAP-group; 12 in ROB-group), with no demographic or clinical differences between them. ROB-group patients presented lower intraoperative blood loss (23 ± 15 vs. 95 ± 15 ml; p < 0.001), shorter surgery time (178 ± 25 vs. 239 ± 55 min; p = 0.009) and shorter LOS, with a median of 2 days (Q1-Q3: 2-3) when compared to LAP-group (4 days [Q1-Q3:3-5]; p = 0.008). Three post-operative complications were reported, all in LAP-group (2 esophageal perforations and 1 esophageal tightness). After a median follow-up of 11 years, ROB-group patients presented fewer recurrences (0 vs 5; p = 0.039), less reintervention rate (0 % vs 41.7 %; p < 0.039) and lower associated economic costs (28,660$ vs. 60,360$; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This is the first comparative study of robotic and laparoscopic treatment of achalasia in children. Initial outcomes of robotic-assisted Heller-Dor procedure suggests some intraoperative (less blood loss and surgical time) and postoperative advantages (fewer complications and reinterventions). However, long-term studies with larger numbers of patients are needed.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective comparative study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic splenectomy in children: a costeffectiveness study

Laparoscopic elective splenectomy is considered as a safe surgical treatment of spleen non-traumatic blood disorders. However, robotic assisted splenectomy is becoming a promising alternative, although there are scarce studies in pediatric patients. Our aim is to compare the effectiveness and associated costs of both procedures in children. A single-institution retrospective study was performed among consecutive children undergoing splenectomy between 2004 and 2021, who were divided according to the surgical approach: LAS group (laparoscopic splenectomy) and RAS group (robotic assisted splenectomy). Demographics, clinical features, intraoperative blood loss, surgery time, length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complications, need for postoperative blood transfusion, readmission rate and economic data were compared. A total of 84 patients were included (23 LAS group; 61 RAS group), without demographic or clinical differences between them. RAS patients presented lower intraoperative blood loss (42 ± 15 vs. 158 ± 39 ml; p < 0.021) and shorter surgery time (135 ± 39 vs. 182 ± 68 min; p = 0.043), with no differences in median LOS (3 days in both groups). No intraoperative complications or conversion was reported. Five postoperative complications were observed: 4 in LAS patients (17.4%) versus only one in RAS (1.6%; p = 0.021). One reintervention was required in LAS group due to hemoperitoneum 12 h after splenectomy. RAS patients had lower postoperative blood transfusion requirements (1.6% vs. 13.0%; p = 0.025) and lower readmission rate (3.3 vs. 17.4%; p = 0.042). No differences were observed when comparing the median economic costs ($25,645 LAS vs. $28,135 RAS; p = 0.215). Robotic assisted splenectomy may be considered as a safe and feasible option in children compared to the traditional laparoscopic approach. Level of evidence: III.