Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic resection of a pelvic solitary fibrous tumour causing distal ureteric compression

This case report describes a male in his late 40s with a 4 cm pelvic mass compressing the left distal ureter, resulting in left hydroureteronephrosis. Biopsy of the mass was suggestive of a solitary fibrous tumour. The patient underwent a robotic-assisted laparoscopic excision of the left pelvic mass. Intraoperatively, the mass was found to be densely adhered to the ureter, necessitating a left distal ureterectomy and ureteric reimplantation. Subsequent histopathological analysis revealed the mass was a solitary fibrous tumour with no evidence of malignancy.

The compatibility of exoskeletons in perioperative environments and workflows: an analysis of surgical team members' perspectives and workflow simulation

Surgical team members in perioperative environments experience high physical demands. Interventions such as exoskeletons, external wearable devices that support users, have the potential to reduce these work-related physical demands. However, barriers such as workplace environment and task compatibility may limit exoskeleton implementation. This study gathered the perspectives of 33 surgical team members: 12 surgeons, four surgical residents, seven operating room (OR) nurses, seven surgical technicians (STs), two central processing technicians (CPTs), and one infection control nurse to understand their workplace compatibility. Team members were introduced to passive exoskeletons via demonstrations, after which surgical staff (OR nurses, STs, and CPTs) were led through a simulated workflow walkthrough where they completed tasks representative of their workday. Five themes emerged from the interviews (workflow, user needs, hindrances, motivation for intervention, and acceptance) with unique subthemes for each population. Overall, exoskeletons were largely compatible with the duties and workflow of surgical team members.

Advancements in robotic surgery: innovations, challenges and future prospects

The use of robots has revolutionized healthcare, wherein further innovations have led to improved precision and accuracy. Conceived in the late 1960s, robot-assisted surgeries have evolved to become an integral part of various surgical specialties. Modern robotic surgical systems are equipped with highly dexterous arms and miniaturized instruments that reduce tremors and enable delicate maneuvers. Implementation of advanced materials and designs along with the integration of imaging and visualization technologies have enhanced surgical accuracy and made robots safer and more adaptable to various procedures. Further, the haptic feedback system allows surgeons to determine the consistency of the tissues they are operating upon, without physical contact, thereby preventing injuries due to the application of excess force. With the implementation of teleoperation, surgeons can now overcome geographical limitations and provide specialized healthcare remotely. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) aids in surgical decision-making by improving the recognition of minute and complex anatomical structures. All these advancements have led to faster recovery and fewer complications in patients. However, the substantial cost of robotic systems, their maintenance, the size of the systems and proper surgeon training pose major challenges. Nevertheless, with future advancements such as AI-driven automation, nanorobots, microscopic incision surgeries, semi-automated telerobotic systems, and the impact of 5G connectivity on remote surgery, the growth curve of robotic surgery points to innovation and stands as a testament to the persistent pursuit of progress in healthcare.

A comparison of perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review

RAPN can be carried out via a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. The choice between the two approaches is open to debate and usually based on surgeon preference. The perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy were compared. A systematic review of the literature was performed up to May 2020, using PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and Ovid databases. Articles were selected according to a search strategy based on PRISMA criteria. Only studies comparing TRAPN with RRAPN were eligible for inclusion. Eleven studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Baseline demographics (age, BMI, ASA, tumour size, and RENAL nephrometry score), intraoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss, and warm ischaemia time) and postoperative outcomes (major complications according to Clavien-Dindo, length of hospital stay (LOS) and positive surgical margin rate) were recorded. A total of 3139 patients were included (2052 TRAPN vs. 1087 RRAPN). There was no significant difference in demographic variables (age, BMI), tumour size (p = 0.06) nor the nephrometry score (p = 0.20) between the two groups. Operative time (p = 0.02), estimated blood loss (p < 0.00001) and LOS (p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the RRAPN group. No differences were found in major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3; p = 0.37), warm ischaemia time (p = 0.37) or positive surgical margins (p = 0.13). Future researchers must attempt to achieve adequately powered, expertise based, multi-surgeon and multi-centric studies comparing TRAPN and RRAPN. RRAPN gives similar outcomes to TRAPN. RRAPN is associated with reduced operative time and LOS. Ideally, surgeons should be familiar and competent in both RAPN approaches and adopt a risk-stratified and patient-centred individualised approach, dependent on the tumour and patient characteristics. RAPN is feasible via two approaches. The retroperitoneal approach seems to be associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay.

Robot-assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: initial experience with the novel avatera system

PURPOSE

This pilot study was designed to interpret the technically specific features of the avatera robotic system and present our initial experience with this novel platform in robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP).

METHODS

A single-center prospective study was conducted including all patients who underwent RAP with the avatera robotic system from June 2022 to October 2022 in our Department. Transperitoneal robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty was performed in all cases. The trocar placement and the surgical technique were similar in all patients. The successful completion of the procedures, operation time (including draping, docking and console time), decrease in hemoglobin postoperatively, and presence of any complications were the study's primary endpoints.

RESULTS

In total, nine patients underwent RAP using the avatera system. All procedures were successfully completed. The draping of the robotic unit was completed in a median time of 10 min (range 7-15), while the median docking time was 17 min (range 10-24). The median console time was 88 min (range 78-116) and no complications were noticed. The median hemoglobin drop was calculated to 0.7 g/dL (range 0.4-1). During the mean follow-up of 9.33 ± 2.78 months, no late postoperative complications were noticed.

CONCLUSION

The early outcomes of the use of the novel avatera system in RAP are presented. All operations were successfully completed with safety and efficacy, without complications or significant blood loss.

One-year healthcare costs after robotic-assisted and laparoscopic partial and radical nephrectomy: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Despite the wide-spread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), the cost-benefit implications for partial (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) versus laparoscopic surgery (Lap) is not well established. We sought to examine the trend of adoption and 1-year healthcare expenditure of PN and RN, and compare 1-year expenditures of RAS versus Lap for PN and RN.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This cohort study used the MerativeTM MarketScan® Databases between 2013 and 2020. A total of 5,353 patients with kidney cancer undergoing PN (2,980, 55.7%) or RN (2,373, 44.3%). We compared open-conversion, length of stay (LOS), index expenditure, 1-year healthcare expenditure and utilization, and missed work-days between RAS and Lap for PN and RN.

RESULTS

Adoption of PN increased overtime (47.0% to 55.8%), mainly driven by robotic PN increase. Among PN, RAS had lower open-conversion, shorter LOS and lower index expenditure than Lap. Among RN, RAS had shorter LOS, and similar open-conversion and index expenditures. During 1-year post-discharge, RAS had lower hospital outpatient visits (IRR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.85, 0.99, p = 0.029) and office-based visits (IRR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.86, 0.96, p = 0.002) for PN, translating to a 1-day less (95% CI = 0.25, 1.75, p = 0.008) missed from work for RAS. Following RN, RAS had lower 1-year readmission than Lap (O.R = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.94, p = 0.018). RAS and Lap had comparable 1-year post-discharge expenditures for both PN (mean difference, MD = -$475, 95% CI = -$4362, $3412, p = 0.810) and RN (MD = -$4,204, 95% CI = -$13,837, $5430, p = 0.404).

CONCLUSION

At index surgery, RAS was associated with shorter LOS for both PN and RN, and lower open-conversion and expenditures for PN. RAS and Lap had comparable 1-year total expenditures, despite lower healthcare visits for RAS.

Comparison of perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes between 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Literature regarding experience with 3D laparoscopy about prostatectomy has remained scanty, and this could be related to the rise of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. This study aimed to perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that compared perioperative, functional, or oncologic outcomes of both 3D and 2D LRP. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool and Jadad scale were used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Review Manager 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Seven studies with a total of 542 patients were included in the analysis. Among them, two were RCTs. There was no difference between groups in terms of preoperative characteristics. Anastomosis time, hospital day, and overall complication rates were similar in 3D than 2D group. However, operative time [mean difference (MD) -36.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] -59.25 to -14.67; p = 0.001], blood loss (MD -83.5; 95% CI -123.05 to -43.94; p <0.0001), and days of drainage (MD -1.48; 95% CI -2.29 to -0.67; p = 0.0003) were lower in 3D LRP. 2D and 3D LRP showed similarity in the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 6, and 12months postoperatively. Additionally, there was no significant differences in continence and potency recovery rate between two group except higher continence rate of 3D LRP at 3 months.

Conclusion

Current evidence shows that 3D LRP offers favorable outcomes compared with 2D LRP, including operative time, blood loss, days of drainage, and early continence. However, there was no conclusive evidence that 3D LRP was advantaged in terms of oncologic and functional outcomes (except for continence rate at 3 months).

Systematic review registration

The study has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42023426403).

Current urological applications of the Hugo™ RAS system

PURPOSE

To provide an update on the diverse, contemporary urological applications of the Hugo™ RAS system.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify studies that described the clinical applications of the Hugo™ RAS system in Urology. The Hugo™ RAS is a new multi-modular robotic platform created by Medtronic, which offered new innovations, including an open surgical console and individual modular and extendable robotic arms that come in their own movable platforms. Since obtaining regulatory approval in Europe in October 2021, the novel platform has been increasingly used in various urologic and gynecologic procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included, which involved 176 patients who underwent varying urological procedures. These included radical and simple prostatectomy, partial nephrectomy, radical and simple nephrectomy, ureterolithotomy, ureteral reimplant, pyeloplasty, and adrenalectomy. The different docking configurations, operating room set-ups, and early perioperative outcomes were described for the respective procedure.

CONCLUSION

Based on the existing literature, the Hugo™ RAS system can be safely and effectively utilized for various urological procedures. The novel technology provided additional value in enriching the repertoire of urological minimally invasive surgical options. Further research with larger cohort of patients will be required to better refine the operating techniques and understand the perioperative outcomes of the Hugo™ RAS, especially when compared to other robotic surgical platforms.

Comparison between minimally invasive partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to conduct a pooled analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in patients with complex renal tumors (defined as PADUA or RENAL score ≥7).

METHODS

The present study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JS9/A394 . We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until October 2022. MIPN and OPN-controlled trials for complex renal tumors were included. The primary outcomes were perioperative results, complications, renal function, and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2405 patients were included in 13 studies. MIPN outperformed OPN in terms of hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.84 days, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.33; P <0.00001], blood loss (WMD -52.42 ml, 95% CI -71.43 to -33.41; P <0.00001), transfusion rates [odds ratio (OR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.67; P =0.002], major complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86; P =0.007) and overall complications (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.59; P <0.0001), while operative time, warm ischemia time, conversion to radical nephrectomy rates, estimated glomerular decline, positive surgical margins, local recurrence, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and cancer-specific survival were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that MIPN was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, and fewer complications in treating complex renal tumors. MIPN may be considered a better treatment for patients with complex tumors when technically feasible.

Robotic versus Open Pyeloplasty: Perioperative and Functional Outcomes

We designed a retrospective study to assess the surgical and economic outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) compared with open pyeloplasty (OP), including consecutive patients suffering from ureteropelvic junction obstruction and operated on from January 2012 to January 2022 at a single center. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes, including costs, were comparatively analyzed. The primary outcome was 3-month success, defined as symptom resolution and no obstruction upon diuretic renal scintigraphy. Overall, 91 patients were included (48 OP and 43 RALP). The success rate at 3 months was 93.0% and 83.3% in the RALP and OP group, respectively (p = 0.178), and the results remained stable at the last follow-up (35.4 ± 22.8 months and 56.0 ± 28.1 months, respectively). Intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001), need for postoperative analgesics (p = 0.019) and antibiotics (p = 0.004), and early postoperative complication rate (p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the RALP group. None of the assessed variables were a predictor for failure. The mean total direct cost per surgical procedure and related hospital stay was 2373 € higher in the RALP group. RALP is an effective and safe treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction; however, further studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RALP, accounting for indirect costs and cost-saving with new surgical platforms.

Robot-Assisted Radical Nephrectomy Using the Novel Avatera Robotic Surgical System: A Feasibility Study in a Porcine Model

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and intraoperative technical parameters of the new robot-assisted surgical system Avatera by performing bilateral nephrectomy in a live porcine model. Materials and Methods: Six pigs underwent bilateral robot-assisted radical nephrectomy using the Avatera robotic system (RS). The operations were performed by experienced open (Group 1) and laparoscopic (Group 2) surgeons. The operating time, docking time, set-up time, and console time were evaluated. Data regarding intraoperative complications (major or not), injury of adjacent organs, and technical difficulties during the operation were also recorded. Results: Robot-assisted bilateral nephrectomy was completed effectively in all sample pigs. The docking time and set-up time were similar among the two groups, whereas the console time and operating time were significantly longer for the open surgeon group. Two intraoperative minor complications occurred in the open surgeon's group. An inadvertent damage of the renal vein occurred in two cases and the bleeding was controlled effectively. Other than the initial two cases, the estimated blood loss was <50 mL in both groups. Injury of the adjacent organs was not noticed. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that radical nephrectomy using the Avatera robotic surgical system is technically feasible, safe, and valid in pigs. Our results warrant the application of the Avatera RS in other urologic procedures, collecting data for further clinical trials.

Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review

To establish the feasibility of robotic surgical procedures in urology in terms of the applications, merits, and demerits as well as the postoperative and oncological outcomes while comparing it with the conventional approaches. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort studies on Robot-Assisted urological surgical procedures in comparison with the conventional methods. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the revised Cochrane "Risk of Bias" tool. A qualitative narrative synthesis of the data extracted from the studies was performed and presented in tabulated form. After screening, 39 studies were included in our review (7 Randomized Controlled Trials and 32 Cohort studies). Robot-Assisted Prostatectomy appears to be associated with lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay. For Robot-Assisted Cystectomy, the results suggest longer operative time and fewer complications. Robot-Assisted Radical Nephrectomy was found to be associated with fewer perioperative complications and longer mean operative time while Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy was associated with less positive surgical margins and reduced need for postoperative analgesia. The mean operative time was longer while the length of stay was shorter for the robotic approach in inguinal lymphadenectomy and ureteral reimplantation. The feasibility of Robot-Assisted surgery varied for different outcome measures as well as for different procedures. Some common advantages were a shorter length of stay, lesser blood loss, and fewer complications while the drawbacks included longer operative time.Study protocol PROSPERO database (Registration Number: CRD42021256623).

Purely Off-Clamp Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Stands the Test of Time: 15 Years Functional and Oncologic Outcomes from a Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Nephron-sparing surgery represents the gold standard treatment for organ-confined renal tumors. We present 15-years of outcomes after off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (ocLPN).

METHODS

a retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent ocLPN between May 2001 and December 2005. Baseline demographic, clinical, pathologic, surgical, functional and survival data were collected. The Kaplan-Meier method evaluated group-specific oncologic outcomes at 5, 10 and 15 years and the log rank test assessed differences between groups. The same analysis investigated the probabilities of developing a significant renal function impairment (sRFI) and achieving ROMeS. Cox analyses identified predictors of this latter tricomposite outcome.

RESULTS

We included 63 patients whose median tumor size was 3 cm (IQR:2-4). At 15 years, the chances of developing local recurrence, metachronous renal cancers or distant metastases were 2 ± 2%, 23 ± 6% and 17 ± 5%, respectively. Consequently, disease-free, cancer-specific and overall-survival probabilities were 68 ± 6%, 90 ± 4% and 72 ± 6%. MCRSS and UCISS well predicted oncologic outcomes. Overall, nine (14%) patients experienced an sRFI and 33 (52%) achieved ROMeS. Age (HR: 1.046; p = 0.033) and malignant histology (low-risk cancers HR: 3.233, p = 0.048) (intermediate/high risk cancers HR: 5.721, p = 0.023) were independent predictors of ROMeS non-achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

At 15 years from ocLPN, most of patients will experience both excellent functional and oncologic outcomes.

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic ergonomic risk

INTRODUCTION

Work related injuries in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are common because of the strains placed on the surgeon's or assistant's body. The objective of this study was to compare specific ergonomic risks among surgeons and surgical trainees performing robotic and laparoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ergonomic data and discomfort questionnaires were recorded from surgeons and trainees (fellows/residents) for both robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Perceived discomfort questionnaires were recorded pre/postoperatively. Intraoperatively, biomechanical loads were captured using motion tracking sensors and electromyography (EMG) sensors. Perceived discomfort, body position and muscle activity were compared between robotic and laparoscopic procedures using a linear regression model.

RESULTS

Twenty surgeons and surgical trainees performed 29 robotic and 48 laparoscopic procedures. Postoperatively, increases in right finger numbness and right shoulder stiffness and surgeon irritability were noted after laparoscopy and increased back stiffness after robotic surgery. Further, the laparoscopic group saw increases in right hand/shoulder pain (OR 0.8; p = 0.032) and left hand/shoulder pain (0.22; p < 0.001) compared to robotic. Right deltoid and trapezius excessive muscle activity were significantly higher in laparoscopic operations compared to robotic. Demanding and static positioning was similar between the two groups except there was significantly more static neck position required for robotic operations.

CONCLUSION

Robotic assisted surgeries led to lower postoperative discomfort and muscle strain in both upper extremities, particularly dominant side of the surgeon, but increased static neck positioning with subjective back stiffness compared with laparoscopy. These recognized ergonomic differences between the two platforms can be used to raise surgeon awareness of their intraoperative posture and to develop targeted physical and occupational therapy interventions to decrease surgeon WMSDs and increase surgeon longevity.

Does size matter? Comparing robotic versus open radical nephrectomy for very large renal masses

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated perioperative and mortality outcomes of robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy (RRN) vs. open radical nephrectomy (ORN) for very large renal cell carcinomas (RCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients with non-metastatic RCC >10 cm in size (pT2b) were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility characteristics were used to evaluate rates of positive margin, prolonged length of stay (LOS) (>75th percentile), 30-day readmission, and 30-day and 90-day mortality for RRN vs. ORN. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted Cox proportional hazard modeling.

RESULTS

Of the 2,977 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy, 492 (16.5%) underwent RRN. Factors associated with RRN included male gender, metro or urban locations, academic facilities, Charlson-Deyo score >2, private or Medicaid insurance, and surgery in a later year (all P < 0.05). Tumors ≥15.1cm in size were associated with a higher rate of conversion to open surgery (P < 0.001). ORN was associated with increased median postoperative LOS (4d [interquartile range; IQR 3-6] vs. 3d, [IQR 2-4]; P < 0.01). RRN demonstrated no significant difference in the risk of positive margin, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, or 90-day mortality. RRN was associated with a decreased risk of prolonged LOS (OR 0.38; 95%CI [0.28-0.53]). There was no difference in long-term OS observed in patients treated with ORN vs. RRN.

CONCLUSIONS

Very large, non-metastatic RCC can be safely and effectively treated with RRN. Rates of conversion to open were higher for tumors ≥15.1 cm. RRN has comparable long-term OS and improved LOS compared to ORN.

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

Different surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021246811.

Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Expenditures and Utilization Following Minimally Invasive vs Open Nephrectomy

IMPORTANCE

Given the widespread adoption and clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery approaches (MIS) in partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN), assessment of long-term cost implications is relevant.

OBJECTIVE

To compare health care utilization and expenditures within 1 year after MIS and open surgery (OS).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted using a US commercial claims database between 2013 and 2018. A total of 5104 patients aged 18 to 64 years who underwent PN or RN for kidney cancer and were continuously insured for 180 days before and 365 days after surgery were identified. An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed to examine differences in costs and use of health care services.

EXPOSURES

Surgical approach (MIS or OS).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes assessed included 1-year total health care expenditure, health care utilizations, and estimated days missed from work.

RESULTS

Of the 5104 patients, 2639 had PN (2008 MIS vs 631 OS) and 2465 had RN (1816 MIS vs 649 OS) and most were male (PN: 1657 [62.8%]; RN: 399 [63.1%]) and between 55 and 64 years of age (PN: 1034 [51.3%]; RN: 320 [55.7%]). Patients who underwent MIS had lower index hospital length of stay compared with OS (mean [95% CI] for PN: 2.45 [2.37-2.53] vs 3.78 [3.60-3.97] days; P < .001; for RN: 2.82 [2.73-2.91] vs 4.62 [4.41-4.83] days; P < .001), and lower index expenditure for RN ($28 999 [$28 243-$29 796] vs $31 977 [$30 729-$33 329]; P < .001). For PN, index expenditure was lower for OS than MIS (mean [95% CI], $27 480 [$26 263-$28 753] vs $30 380 [$29614-$31 167]; P < .001). Patients with MIS had lower 1-year postdischarge readmission rate (PN: 15.1% vs 21.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82; P < .001; RN: 15.6% vs 18.9%; OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-1.00; P = .05), and fewer hospital outpatient visits (mean [95% CI] for PN: 4.69 [4.48-4.90] vs 5.25 [4.84-5.66]; P = .01; RN: 5.50 [5.21-5.80] vs 6.71 [6.12-7.30]; P < .001) than those with OS. For RN, MIS was associated with 1.47 fewer missed workdays (95% CI, 0.57-2.38 days; P = .001). The reduction in health care use in MIS was associated with lower or similar total cumulative expenditures compared with OS (mean difference [95% CI] for PN: $331 [-$3250 to $3912]; P = .85; for RN: -$11 265 [-$17 065 to -$5465]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, MIS was associated with lower or similar total cumulative expenditure than OS in the period 1 year after discharge from the index surgery. These findings suggest that downstream expenditures and resource utilization should be considered when evaluating surgical approach for nephrectomy.

Surgical outcome predictor analysis following hand-assisted or pure laparoscopic transperitoneal nephroureterectomy using the Taiwan upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma database

Purpose

Taiwan has a high incidence of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes following transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (TP-HALNU) and transperitoneal pure laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (TP-LNU) from the Taiwan nationwide UTUC collaboration database using different parameters, including surgical volumes.

Materials and methods

The nationwide UTUC collaboration database includes 14 hospitals in Taiwan from the Taiwan Cancer Registry. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 622 patients who underwent laparoscopic nephroureterectomy between July 1988 and September 2020. In total, 322 patients who received TP-LNU or TP-HALNU were included in the final analysis. Clinical and pathological data and oncological outcomes were compared.

Results

Of the 322 patients, 181 and 141 received TP-LNU and TP-HALNU, respectively. There were no differences in clinical and histopathological data between the two groups. No differences were observed in perioperative and postoperative complications. There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes between the two surgical approaches. In the multivariate analysis, the cohort showed that age ≥70 years, positive pathological lymph node metastasis, tumors located in the upper ureter, and male sex were predictive factors associated with an increased risk of adverse oncological outcomes. A surgical volume of ≥20 cases showed a trend toward favorable outcomes on cancer-specific survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.154, p = 0.052] and marginal benefit for overall survival (HR 0.326, p = 0.019) in the multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Although different approaches to transperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy showed no significant differences in surgical outcomes, age, sex, lymph node metastasis, and tumor in the upper ureter in the following period were predictive factors for oncological outcomes. Higher surgical volume did not impact disease-free survival and bladder recurrence-free survival but was associated with improved overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Exploration of unknown influencing factors is warranted.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of open partial nephrectomy versus robot assisted partial nephrectomy over 15 years

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard surgical treatment for localized kidney cancer. The objective of our study was to compare clinical and perioperative outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). We retrospectively collected all patients who underwent PN for kidney cancer between 2007 and 2019 at two French academic urology departments. Clinical and perioperative outcomes and complications were compared between the OPN group and the RAPN group. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared using the log-rank test. We included 405 patients. The maximum follow-up time was 13.6 years in the OPN group and 7.1 years in the RAPN group. The OPN group was associated with more blood loss and longer hospital stay (respectively, 287 ml vs. 62.1 ml; p < 0.001 and 8.54 days vs. 4.96 days; p < 0.001). Ischemia time was shorter in the OPN group (11.4 min vs. 16.9 min; p < 0.001). The rate of complications during hospitalization and after discharge from hospital was higher in the OPN group (respectively, n = 51 vs. 30; p = 0.031 and n = 31 vs. 14; p < 0.001). RFS and OS were similar in both groups. In our study, RAPN has better perioperative outcomes with shorter hospital stay and less blood loss but also fewer early and late complications. However, we did not find any difference in terms of RFS and OS.

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in the UK

IMPORTANCE

The cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy remains a subject of debate. Emergence of recent critical clinical data and changes in surgical equipment costs due to their shared use by different clinical specialties necessitate an updated cost-effectiveness analysis in a centralized, largely government-funded health care system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS).

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LRP) using contemporary data on clinical outcomes, costs, and surgical volumes in the UK.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic analysis used a Markov model developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of RARP, LRP, and ORP to treat localized prostate cancer. The model was constructed from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model simulated 65-year-old men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer and were followed up for a 10-year period. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, LRP, and ORP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (direct medical costs and costs outside the NHS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Compared with LRP, RARP cost £1785 (US $2350) less and had 0.24 more QALYs gained; thus, RARP was a dominant option compared with LRP. Compared with ORP, RARP had 0.12 more QALYs gained but cost £526 (US $693) more during the 10-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of £4293 (US $5653)/QALY. Because the ICER was below the £30 000 (US $39 503) willingness-to-pay threshold, RARP was more cost-effective than ORP in the UK. The most sensitive variable influencing the cost-effectiveness of RARP was the lower risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Scenario analysis indicated RARP would remain more cost-effective than ORP as long as the BCR hazard ratios comparing RARP vs ORP were less than 0.99.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that in the UK, RARP has an ICER lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus is likely a cost-effective surgical treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer compared with ORP and LRP. The results were mainly driven by the lower risk of BCR for RARP. These findings may differ in other health care settings where different thresholds and costs may apply.

Does type of robotic platform make a difference in the final cost of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy?

This study evaluates the difference of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) costs in patients with similar preoperative characteristics operated on using the da Vinci^® SP and Xi robotic platforms. We performed a retrospective analysis on 71 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent RARP with the SP robot between June 2019 and April 2020. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed and 71 patients were selected from a cohort of 875 who underwent RARP with the Xi robot in the same period. We divided the total expense per surgery into the cost of disposable materials, robotic instruments (initial purchasing cost divided by the number of "lives"), and operative room costs. Only variable costs are included in this study, as fixed costs do not vary between procedures and are the same for both cohorts. Fixed costs include anesthesia, pathology, surgeon, and hospitalization fees. The median total cost for SP-RARP was $5586 ($5360-$5982) USD and $4875 ($4661-$5093) USD with the XI for a median cost difference of $707 ($584-$832) (P < 0.001). The median cost of disposables for the SP was $1877 ($1588-$2193) USD and for the Xi $1527 ($1407-$1781) USD, P < 0.001. Non-disposable instruments cost per case (fixed cost) was $1610 and $1270 USD for the SP and Xi, respectively. The cost of radical prostatectomy in the SP cohort is higher than the Xi cohort. The greater price was primarily due to the increased cost of instruments and disposable materials. In our experience, the lack of GelPOINT and space maker is also crucial factors to decrease the SP total cost.

Radiotherapy or Surgery? Comparative, Qualitative Assessment of Online Patient Education Materials on Prostate Cancer

As multiple different treatment options are available for prostate cancer (PCa) and YouTube is commonly used as a source for medical information, we performed a systematic and comparative assessment of available videos guiding patients on their choice for the optimal treatment. An independent search for surgical therapy or radiotherapy of PCa on YouTube was performed and the 40 most viewed videos of both groups were analyzed. The validated DISCERN questionnaire and PEMAT were utilized to evaluate their quality and misinformation. The median overall quality of the videos was found to be low for surgery videos, while radiotherapy videos results reached a moderate quality. The median PEMAT understandability score was 60% (range 0-100%) for radiotherapy and 75% (range 40-100) for surgery videos. The radiotherapy videos contained less misinformation and were judged to be of higher quality. Summarized, the majority of the provided videos offer insufficient quality of content and are potentially subject to commercial bias without reports on possible conflict of interest. Thus, most of available videos on YouTube informing PCa patients about possible treatment methods are not suited for a balanced patient education or as a basis for the patient's decision.

The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Patient-Centered Cancer Care in the Era of Precision Medicine

Over the last few decades, changes in diagnostic and treatment paradigms have greatly advanced cancer care and improved outcomes [...].

Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system

PURPOSE

To evaluate the potential opportunities and possible competitiveness of Avatera robotic system (ARS) (Avateramedical, Germany), and perform predictive cost-analysis for its implementation and dissemination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our study employed a projective quantitative research design. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was used to map ARS internal competencies towards external contexts, and potential opportunities and risks in the robotic market. The ARS purchase and procedural costs were evaluated in two different scenarios.

RESULTS

In the first scenario, setting the purchase cost of the Avatera at around $1.3-1.5 million, a total $400 procedural cost reduction compared to the RAS performed with the da Vinci Xi can be calculated. In the second scenario, with a purchase cos of the ARS of $700.000-800.000 and considering a 5-year period with an annual ARS volume of 500 procedures, only an additional $300 will be attributed to the robot itself. Our projections revealed that for an effective competition the purchase cost of ARS should range between $700.000 and $800.000 during the initial phase of market entry. The marketing strategy of the ARS should be oriented towards countries without any robotic system in operational use, followed by countries where the competition intensity in the marketplace is low.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of new robotic systems will greatly affect and reshape the market of robotic surgery. The ARS has all the technical capacity ensuring the performance of high-quality surgical procedures. A fast spread and implementation of the ARS could be expected should the purchase and maintenance costs be kept low.

Temporal improvements in renal surgery outcomes across surgical approaches

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient outcomes in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN).

METHODS

The NSQIP database was used to identify patients undergoing PN or RN for renal neoplasms between 2010 and 2018. The SEER database was also queried to assess changes in tumor staging during the study period. Logistic regression was used to assess the independent relationship between surgery year and approach on postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2018, NSQIP captured 58,020 cases, including 26,745 (46%) PN and 31,275 (54%) RN. The proportion of PN increased annually, from 39.8% in 2010 to 48.7% in 2018. This rise in PN coincided with a decrease in the proportion of patients experiencing complications, irrespective of surgical approach (20.4% of total cases to 14.2% of total cases). While limited by a lack of information on tumor characteristics, multivariable analysis controlling for patient characteristics demonstrated that RN was associated with an increased risk of complications, OR 1.42 (95% CI 1.35-1.49).

CONCLUSION

Here, we report an 8.9% increase in the proportion of patients undergoing PN between 2010 and 2018, with no associated increase in perioperative morbidity/mortality. Given that there was no concurrent shift in stage or size of kidney tumors undergoing resection during the study period, these data therefore suggest markedly improved surgical technique and perioperative management nationally. Furthermore, the relative burden of complications has shifted from patients undergoing PN to those undergoing RN. Therefore PN, when technically feasible, should be increasingly considered.

Retroperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for posterior located renal tumours: Technique and early term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the trans-peritoneal approach is preferred for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN). However, retroperitoneal RPN (RP-RPN) has recently become widespread because of the advantages of easier access to the hilum, ease dissection of posterior tumours, and lower probability of intra-peritoneal organ injury. We aimed to present our initial experience of the RP-RPN series in posteriorly located renal tumours.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients were included in the study, who underwent RP-RPN by a single surgeon between July 2019 and January 2020. RP-RPN was carried out only in posteriorly located renal tumours with ischemic (on-clamp) or zero ischemic (off-clamp) techniques. Patients with solitary kidney and a history of previous retroperitoneal surgery in the lumbodorsal region were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

All cases completed without any operative complication and conversion to open or radical nephrectomy. Seven cases were completed as zero ischemic and 14 cases as ischemic technique. The mean operation time was 157.86 ± 64.24 minutes and estimated blood loss was 173.81 ± 136.84 mL. The mean warm ischemia time was 15.81 ± 12.42 minutes. Positive surgical margin observed in 4.8% of the patients. The mean length of stay was 3.33 ± 0.79 days. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) change in the 3rd postoperative month was -3.71 ± 8.57 ml/min/1.73 m² (4.6%). Mean follow-up period was 10.29 ± 4.86 months. New-onset stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease (eGFR < 60 m /min/1.73m² ) was not observed during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

RP-RPN is a safe and feasible approach with acceptable oncological and functional results. We think that RP-RPN can be applied as an alternative to the trans-peritoneal approach for selected cases, especially in renal tumours with the posterior location.

Long-term outcomes of minimally invasive surgeries in partial nephrectomy. Robot or laparoscopy?

BACKGROUND

To compare long-term oncological and renal functional outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy for small renal masses.

METHODS

A total of 103 patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 31) and robotic (n = 72) partial nephrectomy between April 2015 and November 2018 were included in the study. Perioperative parameters, long-term oncological and functional outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in terms of age, tumour size, RENAL and PADUA scores, pre-operative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and presence of chronic hypertension and diabetes (P = .479, P = .199, P = .120 and P = .073, P = .561, and P = .082 and P = .518, respectively). Only estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group in operative parameters (158.23 ± 72.24 mL vs. 121.11 ± 72.17 mL; P = .019), but transfusion rates were similar between the groups (P = .33). In the laparoscopic group, two patients (6.5%) required conversion to open, while no conversion was needed in the robotic group (P = .89). There were no differences in terms of positive surgical margin and complication rates (P = .636 and P = .829, respectively). No significant differences were observed in eGFR changes and post-operative new-onset chronic kidney disease at 1 year after the surgery (P = .768, P = .614, respectively). The overall mean follow-up period was 36.07 ± 13.56 months (P = .007). During the follow-up period, no cancer-related death observed in both group and non-cancer-specific survival was 93.5% and 94.4% in laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (P = .859).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, perioperative and long-term oncological and functional outcomes seems to be comparable between laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomies.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis Based on Comparative Studies

Background

To compare perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes between transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN).

Methods

A literature searching of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed in August, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plots. Only comparative studies with matched design or similar baseline characteristics were included.

Results

Eleven studies embracing 2,984 patients were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to open (P = 0.44) or radical (P = 0.31) surgery, all complications (P = 0.06), major complications (P = 0.07), warm ischemia time (P = 0.73), positive surgical margin (P = 0.87), decline in eGFR (P = 0.42), CKD upstaging (P = 0.72), and total recurrence (P = 0.66). Patients undergoing TRPN had a significant higher minor complications (P = 0.04; OR: 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01–1.91), longer operative time (P < 0.001; WMD: 21.68; 95% CI, 11.61 to 31.76), more estimated blood loss (EBL, P = 0.002; WMD: 40.94; 95% CI, 14.87 to 67.01), longer length of hospital stay (LOS, P < 0.001; WMD: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.37). No obvious publication bias was identified.

Conclusion

RRPN is more favorable than TRPN in terms of less minor complications, shorter operative time, less EBL, and shorter LOS. Methodological limitations of the included studies should be considered while interpreting these results.

Role of laparoscopy in the era of robotic surgery in urology in developing countries

With the rapid expansion of robotic platforms in urology, there is an urgent and unmet need to review its cost and benefits in comparison to the traditional laparoscopy, especially in reference to a developing country. A nonsystematic review of the literature was conducted to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted urologic procedures. Available literature over the past 30 years was reviewed. Robot-assisted surgery and laparoscopy were found to have similar outcomes in the areas of radical prostatectomy, partial and radical nephrectomy, radical cystectomy, retroperitoneal lymph node (LN) dissection, inguinal LN dissection, donor nephrectomy, and kidney transplantation. Robot-assisted surgery was found to be significantly costlier than pure laparoscopy. In the absence of a clear advantage of robot-assisted surgery over pure laparoscopy, lack of widespread availability and the currently prohibitive cost of robotic technology, laparoscopic urological surgery has a definite role in the developing world.

Comparison of Safety, Efficacy and Outcomes of Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty vs Conventional Laparoscopy

Pyeloplasty is considered the gold standard for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in cases of flank pain, recurrent stone formation or infection, and deteriorating renal function. Over the last two decades, minimally invasive techniques such as robotic (RALP) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) have become increasingly popular and have been moderately replacing the open approach. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive up-to-date review on safety, efficacy and outcomes regarding robotic repair of UPJO compared to the conventional laparoscopic procedure. RALP represents a viable and innovative alternative to conventional LP with a comparable success and complication rate both in adult and in paediatric fields. The robotic approach seems to add further technical advantages when compared to conventional LP but sustains a higher costs. Currently, the choice to adopt one of the different minimally invasive approaches depends on the surgeon's preference or experience, and on institutional availability.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Middle East: A report on the perioperative outcomes from a tertiary care centre in Lebanon

Objective

To report on the surgical, oncological and early functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at our tertiary care centre, as there is a scarcity of reports on outcomes of robotic surgery from the Middle East.

Patients and methods

We reviewed the electronic health records for patients undergoing RARP between 2013 and 2019 at the American University of Beirut Medical Center. We collected patients’ demographics and preoperative oncological factors including prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical oncological stage, and World Health Organization (WHO) grade. PSA persistence, biochemical recurrence (BCR) and positive surgical margin (PSM) were reported. Complications were categorised by Clavien–Dindo grade. Moreover, the postoperative oncological outcomes including the rates of adjuvant and salvage androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), chemotherapy, and metastasis were reported. Additionally continence and potency results were retrieved.

Results

For the designated period, 250 patients underwent RARP of which 182 (72.8%) underwent lymph node dissection. The median (interquartile range) anaesthesia time was 330 (285–371) min and the estimated blood loss was 200 (200–300) mL. The overall complication rate was 8%, with 2% Clavien–Dindo Grade III–IV complications. The PSM and BCR rates were 21.6% and 6.4%, respectively. Adjuvant ADT and EBRT was administered to 7.2% of the patients. Functional data was available for 112 patients. Continence was 68%, 82% and 97% of the patients at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. For 65 patients who had bilateral nerve sparing potency was 37%, 60% and 83% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively.

Conclusion

This is the largest RARP series from the Middle East. The surgical, oncological and functional outcomes are consistent with those published in the literature. This confirms the safety and efficacy of applying robotic technology in our region during the implementation phase.

Abbreviations: ADT: androgen-deprivation therapy; AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer; AUBMC: American University of Beirut Medical Center; BCR: biochemical recurrence; CPT: Current Procedural Terminology; EBRT external beam radiation therapy; IQR, interquartile ranges; LOS: length of stay; PLND: pelvic lymph node dissection; PSM: positive surgical margin; (O)(RA)RP, (open) (robot-assisted) radical prostatectomy

Contemporary National Assessment of Robot-Assisted Surgery Rates and Total Hospital Charges for Major Surgical Uro-Oncological Procedures in the United States

Background: The role of robot assistance is increasingly gaining importance among all major surgical uro-oncological procedures (MSUPs). However, contemporary analyses showed that total hospital charges (THCGs) related to robot-assisted procedures exceed those of open procedures. Based on increasing familiarity with robot-assisted surgery, we postulated that THCGs may have decreased over the past half-decade. Thus, we tested contemporary trends and THCGs related to robot-assisted vs nonrobot-assisted MSUPs. Materials and Methods: Within the National Inpatient Sample database (2009-2015), we identified patients who underwent robot-assisted vs nonrobot-assisted (open or laparoscopic) MSUPs, which included radical prostatectomy (RP), radical nephrectomy (RN), partial nephrectomy (PN), and radical cystectomy (RC). Rates of robot-assisted MSUPs were evaluated using estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs) analyses. The t-test was used to examine statistically significant differences between mean THCGs according to either robot-assisted or nonrobot-assisted approach. Finally, linear regression analyses were tested for annual variation in the mean THCGs. Results: Of 128,367 MSUPs, 47.7% were robot-assisted. Overall, robot-assisted surgery rates among MSUPs increased from 40.3% to 57.6% (EAPC: +6.3%, p < 0.001) between 2009 and 2015. The mean THCGs for robot-assisted RP, RN, PN, and RC were $13,799, $18,789, $16,574, and $33,575, respectively. The observed mean THCGs differences between robot-assisted and nonrobot-assisted MSUPs were +$1594, +$1592, and +$1829 for RP, RN, and RC, respectively (all p < 0.05). Conversely, no statistically significant difference in the mean THCGs was reported between robot-assisted and nonrobot-assisted PN (+$367, p > 0.05). Finally, the annual observed mean THCGs linearly decreased for all robot-assisted MSUPs during the study period. Conclusions: Rates of robot-assisted MSUPs exponentially increased between 2009 and 2015. Although the mean THCGs decreased in a significant manner during the study period for all MSUPs, THCGs of robot-assisted RP, RN, and RC still exceed those of their respective nonrobot-assisted counterparts. Conversely, no differences in the mean THCGs were reported between robot-assisted vs nonrobot-assisted PN.

The Hidden Curriculum: Strategies for Preparing Residents for Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper was to identify areas of importance in modern urology education that are not currently emphasized in current urological curricula.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified curricular deficits in robotic surgical simulation, transgender health, leadership, business management, and social media training. Few practicing urologists feel comfortable managing transgender-specific needs, and most training programs do not adequately address transgender health. Urology programs also do not sufficiently emphasize topics in leadership, business management, or appropriate social media usage. With respect to simulation, while it is currently included in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) program requirements, it is currently under-utilized for training in robotic surgery. It is important for urologists to receive adequate training for the modern practice landscape. Where knowledge gaps among early practicing urologists arise, programs should adapt their curricula to address them.

Integrating the MasSpec Pen to the da Vinci Surgical System for In Vivo Tissue Analysis during a Robotic Assisted Porcine Surgery

Minimally invasive robotic-assisted surgeries have been increasingly used as a first-line of treatment for patients undergoing oncologic surgeries. In-situ tissue identification is critical to guide tissue resection and assist decision-making. Traditional intraoperative histopathologic analysis of frozen tissue sections can be time-consuming and present logistical challenges which interrupt surgical workflows. We report the development and implementation of a laparoscopic, drop-in version of the MasSpec Pen device integrated into the da Vinci Xi Surgical system for in vivo tissue analysis in a robotic-assisted porcine surgery. We evaluated the performance of the drop-in MasSpec Pen during surgery by introducing the device into the animal upper gastrointestinal system and performing in vivo analyses of the stomach and liver, including charred and bloody tissues after electrocauterization. The molecular profiles obtained included ions tentatively identified as metabolites and lipids typically observed with MasSpec Pen analysis, without causing observable tissue damage. Statistical classifiers built to distinguish porcine liver and stomach tissues using the in vivo data yielded an overall tissue identification accuracy of 98% (n = 53 analyses). The results provide evidence that the drop-in MasSpec Pen developed can be used to acquire mass spectra in vivo during a robotic-assisted surgery and might be used as an in vivo tissue assessment tool to help guide surgical resections and streamline surgical workflows.

Comparison of the effects of sugammadex and neostigmine on hospital stay in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex reduces postoperative complications. We sought to determine whether it could reduce the length of hospital stay, post-anesthetic recovery time, unplanned readmission, and charges for patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) when compared to neostigmine.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent RALP between July 2012 and July 2017, in whom rocuronium was used as a neuromuscular blocker. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay after surgery in patients who underwent reversal with sugammadex when compared to those who underwent reversal with neostigmine. The secondary outcomes were post-anesthetic recovery time, hospital charges, and unplanned readmission within 30 days after RALP.

RESULTS

In total, 1430 patients were enrolled. Using a generalized linear model in a propensity score-matched cohort, sugammadex use was associated with a 6% decrease in the length of hospital stay (mean: sugammadex 7.7 days vs. neostigmine 8.2 days; odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.89, 0.98], P = 0.008) and an 8% decrease in post-anesthetic recovery time (mean: sugammadex 36.7 min vs. neostigmine 40.2 min; OR 0.92, 95% CI [0.90, 0.94], P < 0.001) as compared to neostigmine use; however, it did not reduce the 30-day unplanned readmission rate (P = 0.288). The anesthesia charges were higher in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group (P < 0.001); however, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of postoperative net charges (P = 0.061) and total charges (P = 0.100).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the reversal of rocuronium effects with neostigmine, reversal with sugammadex after RALP was associated with a shorter hospital stay and post-anesthetic recovery time, and was not associated with 30-day unplanned readmission rates and net charges.

Comparison of readmission and early revision rates as a quality metric in total knee arthroplasty using the Nationwide Readmission Database

Background

After release of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement bundle, there has been increased emphasis on reducing readmission rates for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The potential for a separate, clinically-relevant metric, TKA revision rates within a year following surgery, has not been fully explored. Based on this, we compared rates and payments for TKA readmission and revision procedures as metrics for improving quality and cost.

Methods

We utilized the 2013 Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) to examine national readmission and revision rates, the reasons for revision procedures, and associated costs for elective TKA procedures. As data are not linked across years, we examined revision rates for TKA completed in the month of January by capturing revision procedures in the subsequent following 11-month period to approximate a 1-year revision rate. Diagnosis and procedure codes for revision procedures were collected. Average readmission and revision procedure costs were then calculated, and the cost distributed across the entire TKA population.

Results

We identified 20,851 patients having TKA surgery. The mean unadjusted 30- and 90-day TKA readmission rates were 3.4% and 5.8%, respectively. In contrast, the mean unadjusted 3-month and approximate 1-year reoperation rates were 1.0% and 1.6%, respectively. The most common cause for revision was periprosthetic joint infection, which accounting for 62% of all reported revision procedures. The mean payment for 90-day readmission was roughly half ($10,589±$11,084) of the mean inpatient payment for single reoperation procedure at 90 days ($20,222±$17,799). Importantly, nearly half (46%) of all 90-day readmissions were associated with a reoperation event within the first year.

Conclusions

Readmission following TKA is associated with a 1-year reoperation in approximately half of patients. These reoperations represent a significant patient burden and have a higher per episode cost. Early reoperation may represent a more clinically relevant target for quality improvement and cost containment.

Three Different Ways of Treating Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma at an Early Stage: A Prospective Comparative Study

Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (PHC) is one of the most common malignancies in clinical practice. According to the "Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer in China," PHC, at an early stage, can be treated by surgical resection and ablation. Surgical resection basically consists of two ways; one is open hepatectomy (OH), and the other is laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH), which is a newly developed technique associated with advantages of open surgery. Ablation, also known as percutaneous thermal ablation using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), is a minimally invasive curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. This preliminary report was aimed at evaluating the postoperative outcome of the patients undergoing these three therapeutic methods, respectively. The study analyzed the data of 95 patients who underwent LH, OH, or ablation between June 2018 and June 2019 at First People's Hospital of Changzhou, Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. There were 20 patients in the ablation group, 35 patients in the OH group, and 40 patients in the LH group. Among the three groups, the postoperative short-term outcome was the best in the ablation group, suggesting that it was a safe and cheap way to treat PHC at an early stage.

Contemporary Comparison of Open to Robotic Prostatectomy at a Veteran's Affairs Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Among veterans, prostate cancer is the most common malignancy and has a higher incidence compared to the rest of the nation. No study has compared the effectiveness of Robotic-assisted-laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) vs. open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in the Veteran's Affairs (VA) hospital setting during the adoption of RALP.

METHODS

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Retrospective review was completed on Veterans with prostate cancer who underwent ORP or RALP from March 2011 to January 2017 during the introduction of RALP at one VA hospital. Perioperative and functional outcomes between ORP and RALP were compared as well as between the initial 50 and final 53 RALPs.

RESULTS

Among 91 ORPs and 153 RALPs, RALP had significant reductions in blood transfusions [2(1.3%) vs. 44(40%), p < 0.001], length of stay [2 days(1-2) vs. 3 days(2-4), p < 0.001], Clavien grade >2 complications [1(0.7%) vs. 20 (22.0%), p < 0.001], urine leak [2(1.3%) vs. 11 (12.1%), p < 0.001], and ICU readmissions [0(0%) vs. 3(3.3%), p < 0.001]. There were no significant differences in positive margin status or functional outcomes. Compared to the first 50 cases, the last 53 RALPs demonstrated a shorter operative time (349 vs. 292 min, p < 0.001), lower EBL (300 vs. 150 mL, p < 0.001), more frequent 1-day length of stay (34% vs. 60%, p = 0.02), and fewer composite adverse events (82% vs. 51%, p = 0.004). Operative time for the final 53 RALPs (292 minutes) was shorter than that of ORP (325 minutes, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

During the introduction of RALP at one VA hospital, RALP was associated with several improved parameters compared to ORP and similar operative times were noted after the first 100 cases of RALPs. RALP is safe to introduce in a VA setting without compromising outcomes.

Robot set-up time in urologic surgery: an opportunity for quality improvement

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted techniques are widespread in urology. However, prolonged preparation time for robotic cases hinders operating room (OR) efficiency and frustrates robotic surgeons. Pre-operative times are an opportunity for quality improvement (QI) and enhancing OR throughput. We have previously shown that pre-operative times in robotic cases are highly variable and that increasing patient complexity was associated with longer times. Our objective was to characterize set-up times in robotic urology cases and to determine whether prolongation was due to robot set-up, in particular.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing robotic-assisted urology procedures at our academic institution had routine peri-operative collection of demographic data and OR time stamps. Following IRB approval, we retrospectively reviewed set-up times from an OR database. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the influence of independent patient variables-gender (M/F), smoking history, age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)-on robot set-up times. Institutional factors including procedure, surgeon, and case year were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 808 patients undergoing 816 robotic-assisted procedures from 2013 to 2018 met inclusion criteria. Robot set-up times varied only by gender (F > M) but not by general patient complexity. Age, BMI, smoking status, ASA, and CCI did not play a role in prolonging robot set-up times. There was marked variability of robot set-up times, even within procedure type. Robot set-up times generally improved over time for a given surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot set-up time is not affected by patient complexity, in contrast to pre-operative time. It is affected by procedure type and does improve with experience. There is wide variability of robot set-up times and this is an important target for surgical QI.

Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Costs for Robotic Cancer Surgery in US Adults

IMPORTANCE

Expensive technologies-including robotic surgery-experience rapid adoption without evidence of superior outcomes. Although previous studies have examined perioperative outcomes and costs, differences in out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing robotic surgery are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To assess out-of-pocket costs and total payments for 5 types of common oncologic procedures that can be performed using an open or robotic approach.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective, cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted analysis was performed using deidentified insurance claims for 1.9 million enrollees from the MarketScan database from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. The final study sample comprised 15 893 US adults aged 18 to 64 years who were enrolled in an employer-sponsored health plan. Patients underwent either an open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, partial colectomy, radical nephrectomy, or partial nephrectomy for a solid-organ malignant neoplasm. Statistical analysis was performed from December 18, 2018, to June 5, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Type of surgical procedure-robotic vs open.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of interest was out-of-pocket costs associated with robotic and open surgery. The secondary outcome of interest was associated total payments.

RESULTS

Among 15 893 patients (11 102 men; mean [SD] age, 55.4 [6.6] years), 8260 underwent robotic and 7633 underwent open procedures; patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy were older than those undergoing open hysterectomy (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [6.7] vs 54.6 [7.2] years), and patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy had more comorbidities than those undergoing robotic radical nephrectomy (≥2 comorbidities, 658 of 861 [76.4%] vs 244 of 347 [70.3%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all procedures: -$137.75 (95% CI, -$240.24 to -$38.63) for radical prostatectomy (P = .006); -$640.63 (95% CI, -$933.62 to -$368.79) for hysterectomy (P < .001); -$1140.54 (95% CI, -$1397.79 to -$896.54) for partial colectomy (P < .001); -$728.32 (95% CI, -$1126.90 to -$366.08) for radical nephrectomy (P < .001); and -$302.74 (95% CI, -$523.14 to -$97.10) for partial nephrectomy (P = .003). The robotic approach was similarly associated with lower adjusted total payments: -$3872.62 (95% CI, -$5385.49 to -$2399.04) for radical prostatectomy (P < .001); -$29 640.69 (95% CI, -$36 243.82 to -$23 465.94) for hysterectomy (P < .001); -$38 151.74 (95% CI, -$46 386.16 to -$30 346.22) for partial colectomy; (P < .001); -$33 394.15 (95% CI, -$42 603.03 to -$24 955.20) for radical nephrectomy (P < .001); and -$9162.52 (95% CI, -$12 728.33 to -$5781.99) for partial nephrectomy (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found significant variation in perioperative costs according to surgical technique for both patients (out-of-pocket costs) and payers (total payments); the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all studied oncologic procedures.

Surgical approaches for treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction - a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Multiple surgical treatment options are available for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). The aim of this study is to compare the most frequently used technics in a comprehensive network approach.

Methods

A systematic literature search of the EMBASE, MEDLINE and COCHRANE libraries was conducted in January 2018. Publications were included that evaluated at least two of the following surgical techniques: open pyeloplasty (OP), endopyelotomy (EP), laparoscopic (LP) and robot assisted pyeloplasty (RP). Main outcomes were operative success, complications, urinary leakage, re-operation, transfusion rate, operating time, and length of stay. Network meta-analyses with random effects models simultaneously assessed effectiveness of all surgical techniques.

Results

A total of 26 studies including 3143 patients were analyzed. Compared with RP, EP and LP showed lower operative success rates (EP: OR = 0.09, 95%CI:0.05–0.19; p < 0.001; LP: OR = 0.51, 95%CI:0.31–0.84; p = 0.008). Compared with OP, LP and RP had lower risk for complications (LP: OR = 0.62; 95%CI:0.41–0.95; p = 0.027; RP: OR = 0.41; 95%CI:0.22–0.79; p = 0.007). Compared with RP, no significant differences were detected for urinary leakage or re-operation, transfusion rates. Compared with EP, RP yielded longer operating time (mean = 102.87 min, 95%CI:41.79 min–163.95 min, p = < 0.001). Further significant differences in operating times were detected when comparing LP to EP (mean = 115.13 min, 95%CI:65.63 min–164.63 min, p = < 0.001) and OP to EP (mean = 91.96 min, 95%CI:32.33 min–151.58 min, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Multiple surgical techniques are available for treatment of UPJO. RP has the highest rates of operative success and as well as LP lower complication rates than OP. Although surgical outcomes are worse for EP, its operating time is shorter than OP, RP, and LP. Surgeons should consider these findings when selecting the optimal treatment method for individual patients.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy for Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Comparative Study

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is a newly developed technique associated with advantages as open surgery, but the study on outcome of liver function recovery was scarce. This preliminary report was aimed to comparatively assess the short-term outcomes between LH and open hepatectomy (OH) for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (PHC). This study retrospectively analyzed the demographic data and short-term outcomes of 81 patients who underwent LH or OH for the primary treatment of PHC between Oct. 2017 and May 2018 at Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology (China). A total of 81 PHC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 38 (47%) patients in the LH group and 43 (53%) patients in the OH group. The operative time was significantly longer (373.53±173.38 vs. 225.43±55.08, P<0.01), and hospital stay (17.34±5.93 vs. 21.70±6.89, P=0.003), exhaust time (2.32±0.62 vs. 3.07±0.59, P<0.01) and defecation time (2.92±0.78 vs. 3.63±0.58, P<0.01) were significantly shorter in LH group than in OH group. The recovery of liver function was significantly faster in LH group, including higher serum albumin (P=0.002), higher ratio of albumin/globulin (P=0.029) and lower direct bilirubin (P=0.001) than in OH group. It is suggested that LH can serve as a fast recovery and cheap surgical procedure in the treatment of PHC, which is safe and feasible.

A Single Overnight Stay After Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Does Not Increase Complications

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of postoperative day 1 (POD1) discharge after robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and to determine whether a protocol targeting a shorter length of stay (LOS) is associated with any difference in the rate of postoperative complications. Materials and Methods: We reviewed a prospectively maintained, multi-institutional database of patients who underwent RPN from September 2013 to September 2016. Three of the six participating surgeons used a protocol that targeted discharge on POD1, whereas three surgeons did not. Patient characteristics and postoperative complication rates between the two groups were compared. Results: A total of 665 patients were included, 455 of whom were treated by surgeons utilizing a POD1 discharge protocol, whereas 210 were not. The mean LOS for those in the POD1 protocol group was 1.13 days vs 2.02 days in the non-protocol group. Between groups, there were no differences in age (p = 0.098), body mass index (p = 0.164), tumor size (p = 0.502), or R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry score (p = 0.974), but POD1 discharge protocol patients had higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score (4 vs 2, p = 0.033), were less likely to have a hilar tumor (15.9% vs 23.1%, p = 0.03), and had a larger percent decrease in discharge estimated glomerular filtration rate (-15.9% vs -7.1%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the rates of overall (p = 0.715), major (p = 0.164), medical (p = 0.089), or surgical complications (p = 0.301) or in complications by the Clavien-Dindo category (p = 0.13). Conclusion: Discharge on POD1 after RPN is feasible, reproducible by different surgeons, and not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Comparison of Peri-operative and Early Oncological Outcomes of Robot-Assisted vs. Open Salvage Lymph Node Dissection in Recurrent Prostate Cancer

Introduction: Salvage lymph node dissection (sLND) has been proposed as a treatment option for prostate cancer patients with lymph node (LN) recurrence following radical prostatectomy to delay or avoid palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Historically sLND has been performed using an open approach, with its associated morbidity. A limited number of studies have reported peri-operative outcomes following robot-assisted sLND. However, a direct comparison with the open approach has hitherto not yet been reported. This study investigates whether robot-assisted sLND is associated with better peri-operative outcomes compared to the open approach. Early oncological outcomes are also compared. Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, clinical data were collected from 60 patients undergoing open sLND between 2010-2016 and 30 patients undergoing robot-assisted sLND between 2016 and 2018 at our tertiary referral center. The primary objective of the study was to compare peri-operative outcomes (length of stay, estimated blood loss, operative time, intra-operative, and postoperative complications) and LN yield between both procedures. As secondary objective early oncological outcome [biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS)] was compared. Variables of interest were compared using the chi-squared test (categorical variables), two sample t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test (continuous variables). To compare BRFS and CRFS, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and log-rank tests were performed. Results: Robotic sLND was associated with reduced blood loss (median 100 vs. 275cc; p < 0.0001) and shorter length of stay (median 2 vs. 7 days; p < 0.0001) compared to open sLND. Moreover, postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery were more prevalent in the open sLND group compared to the robotic group (41.6% vs. 20%, p = 0.04). No significant differences in LN yield (for each sLND template), BRFS, and CRFS were detected between both groups. Conclusion: Robot-assisted sLND is associated with significantly reduced peri-operative morbidity compared to open sLND. No difference in LN yield, BRFS and CRFS was seen between both groups. Modern imaging techniques underestimate the tumor burden and therefore, the surgical sLND template should not be limited to the positive spots on pre-operative imaging.