The hidden costs of open hepatectomy: A 10-year, single institution series of right-sided hepatectomies

A Suture-less Underlay Ventral Herniorrhaphy Technique for High-Risk Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Many factors increase the complexity of abdominal wall reconstruction including attenuated fascia, loss-of-domain, prior hernia surgeries, multiple fascial defects, enterocutaneous fistulas, and mesh infections. We describe our experience of using a suture-less mesh fixation underlay ventral herniorrhaphy technique to combat such issues in high-risk ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

This is a prospective-observational study. Patients from 2019 onward undergoing emergent or elective cases were included. The technique: A large porcine acellular-dermal-matrix (ADM) alone or sutured to a light-weight, macroporous polypropylene mesh is created and placed with ADM facing the bowel. Fibrin glue is sprayed over the mesh, fascia and skin closed. An abdominal binder is placed pre-extubation and left undisturbed for 5 postoperative days.

RESULTS

Of 34 included patients, the average demographic was a Caucasian (62.9%) female (65.7%), with class-I or greater obesity (76.5%), hypertension (74.3%), dyslipidemia (48.6%), non-skin malignancy (40.0%), type II diabetes mellitus (34.3%), a ventral hernia working group class of III-IV (55.9%), a mean of 3 ± 2.2 prior surgeries, and mean fascial defect size of 12.3 x 13.5cm. Five were prior solid-organ transplant recipients. Four patients underwent simultaneous tumor extirpations and herniorrhaphy. Five cases (14.7%) were emergent. Removal of prior mesh was performed in 48.5% of cases-seven had infected mesh. Median length of stay was 7 days, with 141 days median follow-up time. Fifteen patients (44.1%) developed a complication. Hernia-specific complications were limited to healing problems. There were no recurrences.

CONCLUSION

This technique is easy and safe to employ in patients requiring high-risk complex abdominal reconstructions with minimal hernia-specific complications.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.