1
|
Koh YX, Zhao Y, Tan IEH, Tan HL, Chua DW, Loh WL, Tan EK, Teo JY, Au MKH, Goh BKP. Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Surgery 2024; 176:11-23. [PMID: 38782702 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.04.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 03/25/2024] [Accepted: 04/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. METHODS A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. RESULTS Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses. CONCLUSION Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ye Xin Koh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore; Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore.
| | - Yun Zhao
- Group Finance Analytics, Singapore Health Services, Singapore
| | | | - Hwee Leong Tan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore
| | - Darren Weiquan Chua
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore; Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore
| | - Wei-Liang Loh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore
| | - Ek Khoon Tan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore; Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore
| | - Jin Yao Teo
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore
| | - Marianne Kit Har Au
- Group Finance Analytics, Singapore Health Services, Singapore; Finance, SingHealth Community Hospitals, Singapore; Finance, Regional Health System & Strategic Finance, Singapore Health Services, Singapore
| | - Brian Kim Poh Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore; Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hou Z, Xie Q, Qiu G, Jin Z, Mi S, Huang J. Trocar layouts in laparoscopic liver surgery. Surg Endosc 2022; 36:7949-7960. [PMID: 35578044 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09312-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since the first laparoscopic wedge resection reported by Reich, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed, acquiring safety and feasibility. The time has witnessed a milestone leap for laparoscopic hepatectomy from pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy to anatomical hepatectomy and from minor liver resection to major liver resection. The numerous previous studies have paid more attention to the short-time and long-time surgical outcomes caused by surgical techniques corresponding to various segments and approaches. However, focus on trocar layouts remains poorly described, but it plays an indispensable role in surgical process. METHODS We have searched PubMed for English language articles with the key words "trocar," "laparoscopic liver resection," and "liver resection approaches." RESULTS This review highlighted each type of trocar layouts corresponding to specific circumstances, including targeted resection segments with various approaches. Notably, surgeon preferences and patients body habitus affect the trocar layouts to some extent as well. CONCLUSIONS Although there were fewer researches focus on trocar layouts, they determine the operation field and manipulation space and be likely to have an impact on outcomes of surgery. Therefore, further studies are warranted to firm the role of trocar layouts in LLR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ziqi Hou
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Qingyun Xie
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Guoteng Qiu
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zhaoxing Jin
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Sizheng Mi
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jiwei Huang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fu B, Zhang JR, Han PS, Zhang YM. Comparison of survival and post-operation outcomes for minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies. Front Oncol 2022; 12:1021804. [DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1021804] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2022] [Accepted: 10/03/2022] [Indexed: 12/07/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundWith the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its long-term survival effect.PurposeThe primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies.MethodsThe study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted.Results43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60–13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p<0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P<0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p<0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p<0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p<0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I2 = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I2 = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I2 = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I2 = 19%).ConclusionThis study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022332556.
Collapse
|