1
|
Vettoretto N, Foglia E, Gerardi C, Lettieri E, Nocco U, Botteri E, Bracale U, Caracino V, Carrano FM, Cassinotti E, Giovenzana M, Giuliani B, Iossa A, Milone M, Montori G, Peltrini R, Piatto G, Podda M, Sartori A, Allocati E, Ferrario L, Asperti F, Songia L, Garattini S, Agresta F. High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica). Surg Endosc 2023; 37:2548-2565. [PMID: 36333498 PMCID: PMC9638482 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09734-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices. METHODS A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from - 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures' savings. RESULTS The literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to - 5.25/-9.02% of operating room time and to - 5.03/-30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals' perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers' quality-of-life emerged. CONCLUSIONS The results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nereo Vettoretto
- U.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia P.O. Montichiari, Ospedale di Montichiari, Chirurgia, V.le Ciotti 154, 25018, Montichiari, BS, Italy.
| | - Emanuela Foglia
- Centre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy
| | - Chiara Gerardi
- Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Emanuele Lettieri
- Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Umberto Nocco
- S.C. Ingegneria Clinica, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda and Associazione Italiana Ingegneri Clinici, Milan, Italy
| | - Emanuele Botteri
- U.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia P.O. Montichiari, Ospedale di Montichiari, Chirurgia, V.le Ciotti 154, 25018, Montichiari, BS, Italy
| | - Umberto Bracale
- U.O.C. Chirurgie Generale e Oncologica Mini Invasiva, A.O.U. Policlinico Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Valerio Caracino
- U.O.C. Chirurgia Generale e d'Urgenza, AUSL Pescara, Pescara, Italy
| | | | - Elisa Cassinotti
- Chirurgia Generale, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Giovenzana
- Unit of HepatoBilioPancreatic and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale San Paolo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Beatrice Giuliani
- Unit of HepatoBilioPancreatic and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale San Paolo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Angelo Iossa
- Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, University of Rome Sapienza Polo Pontino, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Milone
- U.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Federico II di Napoli, Naples, Italy
| | - Giulia Montori
- U.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, Ospedale di Vittorio Veneto, Treviso, Italy
| | - Roberto Peltrini
- U.O.C. Chirurgie Generale e Oncologica Mini Invasiva, A.O.U. Policlinico Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Giacomo Piatto
- UOC Chirurgia Generale e d'Urgenza, Ospedale di Montebelluna (TV), AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso, Italy
| | - Mauro Podda
- Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Alberto Sartori
- UOC Chirurgia Generale e d'Urgenza, Ospedale di Montebelluna (TV), AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso, Italy
| | - Eleonora Allocati
- Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Lucrezia Ferrario
- Centre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy
| | - Federica Asperti
- Centre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy
| | - Letizia Songia
- S.C. Ingegneria Clinica, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda and Associazione Italiana Ingegneri Clinici, Milan, Italy
- SC Ingengeria Clinica, ASST di Lecco, Lecco, Italy
| | - Silvio Garattini
- Centre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Muraki R, Morita Y, Ida S, Kitajima R, Furuhashi S, Takeda M, Kikuchi H, Hiramatsu Y, Fukazawa A, Sakaguchi T, Fukushima M, Okada E, Takeuchi H. Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center. BMC Gastroenterol 2022; 22:154. [PMID: 35351001 PMCID: PMC8962169 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Various hemostatic devices have been utilized to reduce blood loss during hepatectomy. Nonetheless, a comparison between monopolar and bipolar coagulation, particularly their usefulness or inferiority, has been poorly documented. The aim of this study is to reveal the characteristics of these hemostatic devices. Methods A total of 264 patients who underwent open hepatectomy at our institution from January 2009 to December 2018 were included. Monopolar and bipolar hemostatic devices were used in 160 (monopolar group) and 104 (bipolar group) cases, respectively. Operative outcomes and thermal damage to the resected specimens were compared between these groups using propensity score matching according to background factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for postoperative complications. Results After propensity score matching, 73 patients per group were enrolled. The monopolar group had significantly lower total operative time (239 vs. 275 min; P = 0.013) and intraoperative blood loss (487 vs. 790 mL; P < 0.001). However, the incidence rates of ascites (27.4% vs. 8.2%; P = 0.002) and grade ≥ 3 intra-abdominal infection (12.3% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.028) were significantly higher in the monopolar group. Thermal damage to the resected specimens was significantly longer in the monopolar group (4.6 vs. 1.2 mm; P < 0.001). Use of monopolar hemostatic device was an independent risk factor for ascites (odds ratio, 5.626, 95% confidence interval 1.881–16.827; P = 0.002) and severe intra-abdominal infection (odds ratio, 5.905, 95% confidence interval 1.096–31.825; P = 0.039). Conclusions Although monopolar devices have an excellent hemostatic ability, they might damage the remnant liver. The use of monopolar devices can be one of the factors that increase the frequency of complications. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y.
Collapse
|
4
|
Mangieri CW, Strode MA, Bandera BC. Improved hemostasis with major hepatic resection in the current surgical era. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2019; 18:439-445. [PMID: 31307940 DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2019.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2018] [Accepted: 07/02/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Major hepatic resection, predominantly performed for oncologic intent, is a complex procedure with the potential for severe intraoperative hemorrhage. The current surgical era has the ability to improve hemostasis throughout the performance of major hepatic resections which decreases blood transfusions and the detrimental effects associated with transfusion. We evaluated hemostasis and outcomes in the current surgical era of performing hepatic resections. METHODS Utilizing the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database all major hepatic resections performed between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed in regards to hemostasis. Hemostasis was evaluated by the need for and magnitude of blood transfusions. Additional perioperative variables (including operative time, length of hospital stay, and mortality rates) were analyzed to assess for outcomes with hemostasis. The NSQIP results were compared to previous publications involving major hepatic resections to detect improvement in hemostasis and outcomes in the current surgical era. RESULTS A total of 22777 major hepatic resections met the inclusion criteria for analysis in the NSQIP database. An additional 21198 cases were compiled within the selected publications for comparative analysis. The transfusion rate in the current surgical era was 13.3% versus 38.7% in the previous era (P = 0.0001). When a transfusion was required in the current surgical era there was a two-fold reduction in the number of units transfused (1.5 U vs. 3.8 U, P = 0.0001). Statistically significant improvements in operative time and length of hospital stay were presented within the current surgical era (P = 0.0001). When a transfusion was required there was an increased relative risk score of 7 for mortality (4.9% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.0001), however, improvement in mortality rates did not reach statistical significance across surgical eras (1.3% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The conduction of major hepatic resection in the current surgical era is more hemostatic. Correlated with improved hemostasis are better outcomes for both clinical and financial endpoints. These findings should encourage continued and increased performance of major hepatic resections.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher W Mangieri
- Department of Surgery, Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC), Fort Gordon, GA 30809, USA.
| | - Matthew A Strode
- Department of Surgery, Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC), Fort Gordon, GA 30809, USA; Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA
| | - Bradley C Bandera
- Department of Surgery, Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC), Fort Gordon, GA 30809, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Manas DM, Figueras J, Azoulay D, Garcia Valdecasas JC, French J, Dixon E, O'Rourke N, Grovale N, Mazzaferro V. Expert opinion on advanced techniques for hemostasis in liver surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42:1597-607. [PMID: 27329369 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.05.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2016] [Revised: 04/26/2016] [Accepted: 05/05/2016] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Reduction of perioperative blood loss and intraoperative transfusion are two major factors associated with improving outcomes in liver surgery. There is currently no consensus as to the best technique to achieve this. METHODS An international Panel of Experts (EP), made up of hepatobiliary surgeons from well-known high-volume centres was assembled to share their experience with regard to the management of blood loss during liver resection surgery. The process included: a review of the current literature by the panel, a face-to-face meeting and an on-line survey completed by the EP prior to and following the face-to-face meeting, based on predetermined case scenarios. During the meeting the most frequently researched surgical techniques were appraised by the EP in terms of intraoperative blood loss. RESULTS All EP members agreed that high quality research on the subject was lacking. Following an agreed risk stratification algorithm, the EP concurred with the existing research that a haemostatic device should always be used along with any user preferred surgical instrumentation in both open and laparoscopic liver resection procedures, independently from stratification of bleeding risk. The combined use of Ultrasonic Dissector (UD) and saline-coupled bipolar sealing device (Aquamantys(®)) was the EP preferred technique for both open and laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSIONS This EP propose the use of a bipolar sealer and UD for the best resection technique and essential equipment to minimise blood loss during liver surgery, stratified according to transfusion risk, in both open and laparoscopic liver resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D M Manas
- Newcastle Upon Tyne and Newcastle NHS Trust, Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU, UK.
| | - J Figueras
- Josep Trueta Hospital in Girona, Avinguda de França, S/N, 17007 Girona, Spain.
| | - D Azoulay
- Henri Mondor Hospital, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil, France.
| | - J C Garcia Valdecasas
- University of Barcelona, Gran Via de Les Corts Catalanes, 585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
| | - J French
- Newcastle Upon Tyne and Newcastle NHS Trust, Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU, UK.
| | - E Dixon
- University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada.
| | - N O'Rourke
- Wesley Medical Centre, 30 Chasely St, Auchenflower, QLD 4066, Australia.
| | - N Grovale
- Medtronic Regional Clinical Center, Via Aurelia 475-477, 00165 Rome, Italy.
| | - V Mazzaferro
- National Cancer Institute, Via Venezian 1, 20133 Milano, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|