Cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy: Is the robotic platform more expensive?

Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05.

RESULTS

IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05).

DISCUSSION

Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.

Full robotic versus open ALPPS: a bi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

In primarily unresectable liver tumors, ALPPS (Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged hepatectomy) may offer curative two-stage hepatectomy trough a fast and extensive hypertrophy. However, concerns have been raised about the invasiveness of the procedure. Full robotic ALPPS has the potential to reduce the postoperative morbidity trough a less invasive access. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of open and full robotic ALPPS.

METHODS

The bicentric study included open ALPPS cases from the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland and robotic ALPPS cases from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy from 01/2015 to 07/2022. Main outcomes were intraoperative parameters and overall complications.

RESULTS

Open and full robotic ALPPS were performed in 36 and 7 cases. Robotic ALPPS was associated with less blood loss after both stages (418 ± 237 ml vs. 319 ± 197 ml; P = 0.04 and 631 ± 354 ml vs. 258 ± 53 ml; P = 0.01) as well as a higher rate of interstage discharge (86% vs. 37%; P = 0.02). OT was longer with robotic ALPPS after both stages (371 ± 70 min vs. 449 ± 81 min; P = 0.01 and 282 ± 87 min vs. 373 ± 90 min; P = 0.02). After ALPPS stage 2, there was no difference for overall complications (86% vs. 86%; P = 1.00) and major complications (43% vs. 39%; P = 0.86). The total length of hospital stay was similar (23 ± 17 days vs. 26 ± 13; P = 0.56).

CONCLUSION

Robotic ALPPS was safely implemented and showed potential for improved perioperative outcomes compared to open ALPPS in an experienced robotic center. The robotic approach might bring the perioperative risk profile of ALPPS closer to interventional techniques of portal vein embolization/liver venous deprivation.

A decade of experience with 530 minimally invasive robotic hepatectomies from a single tertiary hepatobiliary center: analysis of short-term outcomes and oncologic survival

BACKGROUND

This research is the first study in the United States to document more than a decade of experience with 530 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at a single high-volume institution.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from 2012 to January 2024 was reviewed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of the 530 robotic hepatectomies, 231 (44.0%) were minor resections, 133 (25.0%) were technically major resections, and 166 (31.0%) were major resections. The patients were aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.7) years with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 7.9) kg/m2. Cirrhosis was present in 80 patients (19.0%), with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3.0 (3.0 ± 0.5) and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7.0 (8.0 ± 3.0). Of note, 280 patients (53.0%) had previous abdominal operations, and 44 patients (8%) had previous liver resections. The operative time was 233.0 (260.0 ± 130.7) minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 205.0) mL. Moreover, 353 patients (66%) had hepatectomies for neoplastic disease, and 500 patients (95%) had an R0 resection margin. The tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.6) cm. The total 90-day postoperative complications were 45 (8%), of which 21 (4%) were classified as major complications (Clavien-Dindo score of >III). The length of stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, and the 30-day readmission rate was 86 (16%). The overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 82%, 65%, and 59% for colorectal liver metastases, 84%, 68%, and 60% for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 79%, 61%, and 50% for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, respectively.

CONCLUSION

After a decade of application and optimization at a high-volume institution, the robotic approach has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective approach to liver resection.

Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system.

RESULTS

Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy

Current meta-analysis was performed to compare robotic hepatectomy (RH) with conventional open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were all searched up for comparative studies between RH and OH. RevMan5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Nineteen studies with 1747 patients who received RH and 23,633 patients who received OH were included. Pooled results indicated that patients who received RH were generally younger than those received OH (P < 0.00001). Moreover, RH was associated with longer operative time (P = 0.0002), less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.0001), lower incidence of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.003), lower incidence of postoperative any morbidity (P < 0.00001), postoperative major morbidity (P = 0.0001), mortalities with 90 days after surgery (P < 0.0001), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Comparable total hospital costs were acquired between RH and OH groups (P = 0.46). However, even at the premise of comparable R0 rate (P = 0.86), RH was associated with smaller resected tumor size (P < 0.00001). Major hepatectomy (P = 0.02) and right posterior hepatectomy (P = 0.0003) were less frequently performed in RH group. Finally, we concluded that RH was superior to OH in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. RH could lead to less intraoperative hemorrhage, less postoperative complications and an enhanced postoperative recovery. However, major hepatectomy and right posterior hepatectomy were still less frequently performed via robotic approach. Future more powerful well-designed studies are required for further exploration.

The downtrending cost of robotic bariatric surgery: a cost analysis of 47,788 bariatric patients

The surgical robot is assumed to be a fixed, indirect cost. We hypothesized rising volume of robotic bariatric procedures would decrease cost per patient over time. Patients who underwent elective, initial gastric bypass (GB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for morbid obesity were selected from Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database from 2017 to 2021. Inflation-adjusted cost per patient was collected. Cost-over-time ($/patient year) and change in cost-over-time were calculated for open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases. Linear regression on cost generated predictive parameters. Density plots utilizing area under the curve demonstrated cost overlap. Among 76 hospitals, 11,472 bypasses (223 open, 6885 laparoscopic, 4364 robotic) and 36,316 sleeves (26,596 laparoscopic, 9724 robotic) were included. Total cost for robotic was approximately 1.5-fold higher (p < 0.001) than laparoscopic for both procedures. For GB, laparoscopic had lower total ($15,520) and operative ($6497) average cost compared to open (total $17,779; operative $9273) and robotic (total $21,756; operative $10,896). For SG, laparoscopic total cost was significantly less than robotic ($10,691 vs. $16,393). Robotic GB cost-over-time increased until 2021, when there was a large decrease in cost (-$944, compared with 2020). Robotic SG total cost-over time fluctuated, but decreased significantly in 2021 (-$490 compared with 2020). While surgical costs rose significantly in 2020 for bariatric procedures, our study suggests a possible downward trend in robotic bariatric surgery as total and operative costs are decreasing at a higher rate than laparoscopic costs.

Robotic Cholecystectomy Remains Safe and Effective After Regular Staffing Hours

Background Robotic-assisted surgery continues to grow in popularity. Access during evenings and weekends for non-elective operations can be restricted out of safety concerns. We sought to analyze and compare outcomes of patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy, a common urgent procedure for acute calculous cholecystitis, during regular hours versus evenings or weekends. Based on this comparison, we sought to determine if this restriction is justified. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 46 patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis per 2018 Tokyo criteria by a single surgeon at a single institution between 2021 and 2022. Patients were grouped as undergoing "after-hours" cholecystectomy if the operation started at five pm or later, or anytime during the weekend (Saturday, Sunday). Demographic, perioperative, and outcome variables were tabulated and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data presented as median ± standard deviation were applicable. Results After-hours cholecystectomy occurred in 26 patients and regular-hours cholecystectomy occurred in 20 patients. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts in terms of body mass index, age, gender, cirrhotic status, American Society of Anesthesiology score, white blood cell count, or neutrophil percentage. The after-hours group had more prior abdominal operations. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, or length of stay. There were no mortalities. There was one readmission in the after-hours cohort unrelated to the operation. Conclusion Robotic cholecystectomy can be safely performed on the weekends and evenings. Hospitals should make the robotic platform available during this time.

Procedure-specific risks of robotic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases

An estimated 25% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis, the most common site being the liver. Although prior studies have reported that a simultaneous approach to resections in these patients can lead to increased rates of complications, emerging literature shows that minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches can mitigate this additional morbidity. This is the first study utilizing a large national database to investigate colorectal and hepatic procedure-specific risks in robotic simultaneous resections for CRC and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Utilizing the ACS-NSQIP targeted colectomy, proctectomy, and hepatectomy files, 1,721 patients were identified who underwent simultaneous resections of CRC and CRLM from 2016 to 2021. Of these patients, 345 (20%) underwent resections by an MIS approach, defined as either laparoscopic (n = 266, 78%) or robotic (n = 79, 23%). Patients who underwent robotic resections had lower rates of ileus compared to those who had open surgeries. The robotic group had similar rates of 30-day anastomotic leak, bile leak, hepatic failure, and post-operative invasive hepatic procedures compared to both the open and laparoscopic groups. The rate of conversion to open (8% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and median LOS (5 vs. 6 days, p = 0.022) was significantly lower for robotic compared to laparoscopic group. This study, which is the largest national cohort of simultaneous CRC and CRLM resections, supports the safety and potential benefits of a robotic approach in these patients.

Robotic hepatectomy: current evidence and future directions

Minimally invasive hepatectomy continues to gain popularity and acceptance for treatment of benign and malignant liver disease. Robotic hepatectomy offers potential advantages over open and conventional laparoscopic approaches. Review of the literature on robotic hepatectomy was performed. Search terms included "robotic hepatectomy" and "minimally invasive hepatectomy." Search was further customized to include articles related to robotic surgical technology. Across many parameters in liver surgery, robotic liver resection appears to have comparable outcomes with respect to laparoscopic resection. The benefits over open resection are largely related to less morbidity and faster recovery times. There is evidence that the robotic approach may have a shorter learning curve and enable more difficult resections to be performed minimally invasively. The robotic platform may have the potential to achieve superior margin status or parenchymal sparing resection in oncologic resections, but numerous obstacles remain. The robotic platform has not been applied to liver surgery to the same extent as either laparoscopic or open surgery. Robotic surgical technology will need to continue developing to deliver on its potential advantages.

A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

Analysis of Clinical Outcomes After Robotic Hepatectomy Applying the Western-Model Southampton Laparoscopic Difficulty Scoring System. An Experience From a Tertiary US Hepatobiliary Center

BACKGROUND

Identification of resections with high risk of intraoperative complications is critical in guiding case selection for minimally invasive liver surgery. Several Japanese and European difficulty scoring systems have been proposed for laparoscopic liver surgery. However, the applicability of these systems for robotic liver resections has not been fully investigated. This study considers the Southampton system and examines its validity when applied to robotic hepatectomies.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of 372 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomies for various indications between 2013 and 2022. Of these patients, 63 operations were classified as low risk, 91 as moderate risk, 198 as high risk and 20 as extremely high risk based on Southampton criteria. Patient outcomes were compared by utilizing an ANOVA of repeated measures. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

The Southampton difficulty scoring system was a strong predictor of intraoperative variables including tumor size, operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), and incidence of major vs minor resection (all P < .0001). In contrast, the Southampton system was a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes including 30-day mortality (P = .15), length of stay (P = .13), and readmissions within 30 days (P = .38).

CONCLUSION

The Southampton difficulty scoring system is a valid system for classifying robotic liver resections and is a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes. However, the system was found to be a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes. This finding may suggest the need for proposal of a new difficulty scoring system for robotic hepatectomies.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Robotic Surgery and Hospital Reimbursement

The field of plastic surgery remains at the forefront of technological and surgical innovation. However, the promising applications of robotics in plastic surgery must be thoughtfully balanced with hospital finances and reimbursements. Robotic systems have been studied extensively across multiple surgical disciplines and across diverse health care systems. The results show that there may be equal or better patient outcomes than alternatives. In an era where fiscal responsibility in health care is a top priority, thoughtful budgeting and spending must be considered and revisited frequently to attain sustainable organizational models that ensure appropriate use of robotic technology.