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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |