Analysis of 90-day cost for open versus minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

Current landscape of minimally invasive pancreatectomy for neoplasms: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate recent minimally invasive pancreatectomy (MIP) trends for neoplastic disease and compare perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open (OS) or MIP (laparoscopic-LS or robotic-RS) pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or non-pancreati-coduodenectomy resections (non-PD) were identified from PINC AI Healthcare Database. Outcomes were compared using multivariable regressions.

RESULTS

OS was the predominant approach for PD (87.8%); MIP was more common in non-PD (48.5%) than PD with a substantial RS uptake (11.7%-29.9%). In PDs, outcomes were similar except OS had a longer length of stay (LOS) and lower costs. In non-PDs, MIP patients were less likely to have prolonged LOS, intensive care unit admission, and overall complications than OS. Conversion to OS was lower in the RS approach than LS in PD and non-PD.

CONCLUSIONS

MIP for non-PD has become the most common operative approach with improved outcomes; MIP-PD has flat adoption and similar outcomes to OS. Robotics facilitates MIP (PD and non-PD) completion through fewer conversions to open surgery (OS).

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

[Robotic pancreatic surgery]

Robotic operations as a further development of conventional laparoscopic surgery have been introduced for nearly all interventions in visceral surgery during the last decade. They also currently have a high importance and acceptance in pancreatic surgery despite a relevant learning curve and high associated costs. Standard procedures, such as robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) are most frequently performed, whereas extended resections, e.g., vascular reconstructions of the portal vein, are still limited to a small number of centers worldwide. Potential advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery compared to open surgery include, in particular, less blood loss and a faster postoperative recovery of the patients leading to a shorter hospital stay. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic approaches offer advantages with respect to better visualization and three-dimensional dexterity of the instruments; however, the currently published literature comprises only retrospective or prospective observational studies and randomized controlled results are not yet available but first study results in this respect are expected within the next 2-3 years.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

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 versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

Latest Advances and Future Challenges in Pancreatic Surgery

The field of pancreatic surgery has considerably evolved in recent decades [...].

Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis on costs and perioperative outcome

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.18, 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: -2.62, 95% CI: -3.38 to -1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings.

CONCLUSION

Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

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.

[Evidence for robotics in oncological pancreatic surgery]

Robotic surgical procedures have been implemented and have become an important development in pancreatic surgery with an increasing acceptance worldwide. Nearly all types of pancreatic surgery have now been performed robotically and especially standardized resections, such as distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) have gained importance despite a potentially long learning curve and high associated procedural costs. The present review article summarizes the available literature and evidence on the respective procedures focused on their use for indications of malignancy.

Preoperative predictive factors of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy difficulty

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a challenging operation due to technical complexity and tumor-related factors. Aim of this study was to identify preoperative risk factors affecting LDP difficulty.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LDP between 2015 and 2018 at San Raffaele Hospital and Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital were enrolled retrospectively. Three variables were used to define surgical difficulty: conversion to open, duration of surgery >3rd quartile and intraoperative blood loss >3rd quartile. The presence of ≥1 of these 3 variables was considered as another measure of difficulty.

RESULTS

Overall, 191 patients were included. Conversion to open was required in 25 patients (13%). At multiple regression analysis, tumor proximity to major vessels was the only independent predictor of conversion from laparoscopic to open (p < 0.001). No variables independently predicted an excessive duration of surgery. Male gender (p = 0.033) and increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.018) were independent predictors of excessive blood loss. Increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.014) and tumor proximity to major vessels (p = 0.002) were significant risk factors for the presence of ≥1 outcome of surgical difficulty.

CONCLUSION

Male gender, increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line and tumor proximity to major vessels represent preoperative risk factors of LDP difficulty.

Effects of laparoscopic vs open abdominal surgery on costs and hospital readmission rate and its effect modification by surgeons' case volume

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy provides a minimally invasive alternative to open abdominal surgery. Current data describing its association with hospital readmission and costs in relation to surgeon laparoscopic case volume is limited to smaller databases and subsets of operations.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of 23,285 adult abdominal operations from 2007 to 2015 compares 30-day readmission rate and costs between laparoscopic and open abdominal operations and examines effect modification by surgeon laparoscopic case volume. Outcomes were all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days after discharge and index hospital admission cost.

RESULTS

All-cause hospital readmission rates were significantly lower after laparoscopic abdominal operations compared with open operations (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.69, p < 0.001) with a difference in readmission risk attributable to laparoscopic approach of - 4.0% (95% CI - 5.4 to - 2.6%) in complete-case analysis. Among surgeons with a high laparoscopic case volume, the estimated difference in readmission risk through laparoscopy was magnified (- 5.8%, 95% CI - 7.5 to - 4.1%) compared to low surgeon laparoscopic case volume (- 2.9%, 95% CI - 4.8 to -1.1%, p for interaction = 0.005). The estimated difference in costs of the index hospital admission attributable to laparoscopic approach was - $3869 (95% CI - $4200 to - $3538; adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79, p < 0.001). Laparoscopy was followed by significantly lower rates of readmissions related to gastrointestinal (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.85, p = 0.001), wound complications (infection: aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.47, p < 0.001; non-infectious: aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.74, p = 0.001), and malignancy (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.85, p < 0.001). The findings remain robust after multiple imputation and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy versus open abdominal surgery is associated with reduced hospital readmissions related to malignancy, gastrointestinal, and wound complications. Effect modification by higher laparoscopy case volume argues for continued proliferation of laparoscopy in abdominal surgeries.

Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

BACKGROUND

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is managed with palliative surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting. Limited data exist on differences in cost and outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with malignant GOO undergoing palliative gastrojejunostomy (GJ) or endoscopic stent (ES) were identified between 2012 and 2015 using the MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index procedure and 90-day readmissions and re-intervention were calculated. Frequency of treatment failure-defined as repeat surgery, stenting, or gastrostomy tube-was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 327 patients were included: 193 underwent GJ and 134 underwent ES. Compared to GJ, stenting resulted in lower total median payments for the index hospitalization and procedure-related 90-day readmissions ($18,500 ES vs. $37,200 GJ, p = 0.032). For patients treated with ES, 25 (19%) required a re-intervention for treatment-failure, compared to 18 (9%) patients who underwent GJ (p = 0.010). On multivariable analysis, stenting remained significantly associated with need for secondary re-intervention compared to GJ (HR for ES 2.0 [1.1-3.8], p 0.028).

CONCLUSION

In patients with malignant GOO, endoscopic stenting results in significant 90-day cost saving, however was associated with twice the rate of secondary intervention. The decision for surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting should consider patient prognosis, anticipated cost, and likelihood of needing re-intervention.

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

A nationwide cohort study of resection rates and short-term outcomes in open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is increasingly done by laparoscopy but data from routine practise are scarce. We describe practise in a national cohort.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian Patient Register of all patients undergoing DP from 2012 to 2016. National resection rates were analysed. Short-term outcomes include length of stay, reoperation, readmissions and 90-day mortality. Risk is reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (c.i.).

RESULTS

Of 554 procedures, 327 (59%) were laparoscopic. Median age was 66 years (iqr 55-72) and 52% were women. Resection rates increased during the period for all DP (from 1.76 to 2.39 per 100.000/yr), and significantly for laparoscopic DP (adjusted R-square 0.858; P = 0.015). Elderly patients had more resection (r₂ = 0.11; P = 0.019). Splenectomy (n = 427; 77%) was less likely with laparoscopy (laparoscopy 72% vs open 84%, respectively; OR 0.64, 95% c.i. 0.42-0.97; P = 0.035). Multivisceral resections occurred more often in open DP (5.3% vs 1.2% for laparoscopy, OR 4.51, 1.44-14.2; P = 0.008). Reoperation occurred in 34 (6%), readmission in 109 (20%), and mortality in 8 (1.4%). Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic DP.

CONCLUSION

Use of DP increases in the population, particularly in the elderly, with use of laparoscopic access and an association with a reduced hospital stay.

The laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy is a value-added proposition for patients undergoing care in moderate-volume and high-volume centers

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the impact of the minimally invasive approach to distal pancreatectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy between 2012 and 2014. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate postoperative outcomes including readmissions to 90 days after distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 267 (11%) patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and a total of 2,214 (89%) underwent open distal pancreatectomy. On multivariable regression, patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a decreased odds risk of having any severe adverse outcome (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [0.54-0.97]), prolonged length of stay (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval [0.30-0.79]), and of being in the highest quartile for aggregate costs of care (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval [0.32-0.66]) relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a lower average 90-day aggregate cost of care than those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy when procedures were performed in high-volume (-$16,153, 95% CI: [-$23,342 to -$8,964]) centers.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy have a lower risk of severe adverse outcomes, prolonged overall length of stay, and lower associated costs of care relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. This association is independent of hospital volume.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.