Cargando…

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE: In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to ev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Knitter, Sebastian, Feldbrügge, Linda, Nevermann, Nora, Globke, Brigitta, Galindo, Santiago Andres Ortiz, Winklmann, Thomas, Krenzien, Felix, Haber, Philipp K., Malinka, Thomas, Lurje, Georg, Schöning, Wenzel, Pratschke, Johann, Schmelzle, Moritz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10226911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37247050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02953-x
_version_ 1785050665276407808
author Knitter, Sebastian
Feldbrügge, Linda
Nevermann, Nora
Globke, Brigitta
Galindo, Santiago Andres Ortiz
Winklmann, Thomas
Krenzien, Felix
Haber, Philipp K.
Malinka, Thomas
Lurje, Georg
Schöning, Wenzel
Pratschke, Johann
Schmelzle, Moritz
author_facet Knitter, Sebastian
Feldbrügge, Linda
Nevermann, Nora
Globke, Brigitta
Galindo, Santiago Andres Ortiz
Winklmann, Thomas
Krenzien, Felix
Haber, Philipp K.
Malinka, Thomas
Lurje, Georg
Schöning, Wenzel
Pratschke, Johann
Schmelzle, Moritz
author_sort Knitter, Sebastian
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study. METHODS: We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs. RESULTS: RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7–16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9–41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7–5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-023-02953-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10226911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102269112023-05-31 Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting Knitter, Sebastian Feldbrügge, Linda Nevermann, Nora Globke, Brigitta Galindo, Santiago Andres Ortiz Winklmann, Thomas Krenzien, Felix Haber, Philipp K. Malinka, Thomas Lurje, Georg Schöning, Wenzel Pratschke, Johann Schmelzle, Moritz Langenbecks Arch Surg Research PURPOSE: In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study. METHODS: We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs. RESULTS: RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7–16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9–41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7–5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-023-02953-x. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-05-29 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10226911/ /pubmed/37247050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02953-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Knitter, Sebastian
Feldbrügge, Linda
Nevermann, Nora
Globke, Brigitta
Galindo, Santiago Andres Ortiz
Winklmann, Thomas
Krenzien, Felix
Haber, Philipp K.
Malinka, Thomas
Lurje, Georg
Schöning, Wenzel
Pratschke, Johann
Schmelzle, Moritz
Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting
title Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting
title_full Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting
title_fullStr Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting
title_full_unstemmed Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting
title_short Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting
title_sort robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy – an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10226911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37247050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02953-x
work_keys_str_mv AT knittersebastian roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT feldbruggelinda roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT nevermannnora roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT globkebrigitta roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT galindosantiagoandresortiz roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT winklmannthomas roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT krenzienfelix roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT haberphilippk roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT malinkathomas roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT lurjegeorg roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT schoningwenzel roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT pratschkejohann roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting
AT schmelzlemoritz roboticversuslaparoscopicversusopenmajorhepatectomyananalysisofcostsandpostoperativeoutcomesinasinglecentersetting