Cost-Benefit Analysis of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is growing rapidly. However, economic evaluation of this technology is challenging. This study aims to identify and discuss the different economic evaluation methods which have been used to evaluate RAS.

METHOD

This scoping review systematically searched PubMed and Embase from 2015 to 2023. We included economic evaluation studies comparing RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to aid data extraction and was extended to cover additional features relevant to RAS, including learning curve, organisational impact, incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

RESULTS

A total of 50 economic evaluations of RAS were included. Cost-utility analysis (46%) was the most commonly applied economic evaluation method, followed by cost-consequence analysis (32%). The studies focused on the specialties of urology (42%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (20%), colorectal (14%) and gynaecology (6%). Distinctive features related to the assessment of RAS were under-addressed in economic evaluations. Only 40% of the included studies considered learning curve and organisational impact and less than 12% of the included studies reflected on incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that some studies have incorporated challenges specific to RAS in their evaluations. However, most studies still lack key aspects of importance. In particular, studies rarely considered the ability of RAS platforms to be shared across multiple specialities. Incorporating these distinctive features offers an opportunity for economic evaluation to provide decision-makers with a more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this technology and to ensure its optimal utilisation in clinical practice.

A propensity score matched cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-assisted hepatectomy compared to the open approach is scrutinized. We compared the costs of robotic versus open hepatectomy at a large cancer center.

METHODS

Patients undergoing hepatectomy (1/2019-2/2022) were collected from a prospectively maintained database and 1:1 propensity score matched for 61 robotic and 61 open hepatectomy patients by complexity, tumor diagnosis, and age >65. Financial data was collected and converted to a ratio of service cost to average OR cost. Short-term and economic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Median length of stay (2 vs. 3 days), major complication rates (0% vs. 8.2%), and 90-day readmission rates (3.3% vs. 11.5%) were lower for robotic hepatectomy (all p < 0.05). Total 90-day perioperative costs were lower by 19.5% for the robotic cohort (mean 6.89 vs 8.56; p < 0.01). Intraoperative costs were higher in the robotic cohort (mean 2.75 vs. 2.44; p < 0.01). Cost reduction drivers during postoperative care were supplies (mean 0.26 vs. 0.75), laboratory (mean 0.27 vs. 0.49), regular surgery unit (mean 0.19 vs. 0.32), recovery room (mean 0.26 vs. 0.29) and pharmacy cost (median 0.21 vs. 0.32; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Hospital costs of robotic hepatectomy were lower than those of open hepatectomy due to significantly reduced postoperative costs.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center.

METHODS

In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022).

RESULTS

Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs.

DISCUSSION

In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using data collected from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to collect propensity score-matched studies comparing RLR and LLR. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. Meta-regression analysis was performed for primary outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed for outcomes exhibiting high heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-two propensity score-matched studies were included to comprise 5272 patients (RLR group, 2422 cases; LLR group, 2850 cases). Intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.31 ml, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P =0.0005), open conversion (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58; P <0.0001), and severe complications (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95; P =0.02) were significantly lower in the RLR group. Operation time, odds of use, and duration of Pringle maneuver, length of hospital stay, and odds of intraoperative blood transfusion, overall complications, R0 resection, reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. Further subgroup and sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. Meta-regression analysis did not suggest a correlation between primary outcomes and study characteristics. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was medium or low, while that for the secondary outcomes was medium, low, or very low.

CONCLUSION

Although some short-term outcomes are similar between RLR and LLR, RLR is superior in terms of less blood loss and lower odds of open conversion and severe complications. In the future, RLR may become a safe and effective replacement for LLR.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience

BACKGROUND

The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts.

METHODS

Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has the potential to broaden the indications for minimally invasive liver surgery owing to its technical advantages. This paper compares our experience with robotic liver surgery (RLS) with conventional laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS).

METHODS

All consecutive liver resections between October 2011 and October 2022 were selected from our prospective database to be included in this cohort study. Patients who underwent RLS were compared with a LLS group for operative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 629 patients were selected from our database, including 177 patients who underwent a RLS and 452 patients who had LLS. Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery in both groups. With the introduction of RLS, the percentage of open resections decreased significantly (32.6% from 2011 to 2020 vs. 11.5% from 2020 onward, P < 0.001). In the robotic group, redo liver surgery was more frequent (24.3% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.031) and the Southampton difficulty score was higher (4 [IQR 4 to 7] vs. 4 [IQR 3 to 6], P = 0.02). Median blood loss was lower (30 vs. 100 ml, P < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the robotic group (median 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Cost related to the used instruments and LOS was significantly lower in the RLS group (median €1483 vs. €1796, P < 0.001 and €1218 vs. €1624, P < 0.001, respectively), while cost related to operative time was higher (median €2755 vs. €2470, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS may allow for a higher percentage of liver resections to be completed in a minimally invasive way with lower blood loss and a shorter LOS.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

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

Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Hepatic Surgery: An Historical Review

Hepatic surgery is a rapidly expanding component of abdominal surgery and is performed for a wide range of indications. The introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1987 was a major change in abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was widely and rapidly adopted throughout the world for cholecystectomy initially and then applied to a variety of other procedures. Laparoscopic surgery became regularly applied to hepatic surgery, including segmental and major resections as well as organ donation. Many operations progressed from open surgery to laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery, including colon resection, pancreatectomy, splenectomy thyroidectomy, adrenalectomy, prostatectomy, gastrectomy, and others. It is difficult to prove a data-based benefit using robot-assisted surgery, although laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery of the liver are not inferior regarding major outcomes. When laparoscopic surgery initially became popular, many had concerns about its use to treat malignancies. Robot-assisted surgery is being used to treat a variety of benign and malignant conditions, and studies have shown no deterioration in outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery for the treatment of malignancies has become accepted and is now being used at more centers. The outcomes after robot-assisted surgery depend on its use at specialized centers, the surgeon's personal experience backed up by extensive training and maintenance of international registries. Robot-assisted hepatic surgery has been shown to be associated with slightly less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital lengths of stay compared to open surgery. Oncologic outcomes have been maintained, and some studies show higher rates of R0 resections. Patients who need surgery for liver lesions should identify a surgeon they trust and should not be concerned with the specific operative approach used. The growth of robot-assisted surgery of the liver has occurred in a stepwise approach which is very different from the frenzy that was seen with the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This approach allowed the identification of areas for improvement, many of which are at the nexus of engineering and medicine. Further improvements in robot-assisted surgery depend on the combined efforts of engineers and surgeons.

Comprehensive analysis of laparoscopic, robotic, and open hepatectomy outcomes using the nationwide readmissions database

Although open resections have been the most prevalent method of hepatectomies in the United States, laparoscopic and robotic methods of liver resection have since gained significant traction. Given the augmenting role of minimally invasive techniques in liver resection, a study that explores and analyzes the surgical outcomes of the approaches mentioned above to liver resection on a national basis is warranted. A retrospective analysis was performed in this study using the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Patients who underwent liver resections via one of the following methods were selected and grouped: open, laparoscopic, or robotic. Our primary outcome variable of interest was the 45-day readmission rate. 11,186 patients were included in the analysis. The 45-day readmission rate was 13.5%, 12.9%, and 8.7% in the open, laparoscopic, and robotic groups, respectively (p < 0.001). A significantly lower complication rate (7.3%) was seen in the robotic group than its counterparts (11.4% in open vs. 9.1% in the laparoscopic group). Patients undergoing hepatectomies may benefit from the robotic approach given that it is associated with a shorter hospital length of stay and lower readmission rates.