A Decade of Experience With 530 Minimally Invasive Robotic Hepatectomies From a Single Tertiary Hepatobiliary Center. Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes and Oncological Survival.

BACKGROUND: This research presents the first study in the United States to document more than a decade of experience with 530 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from a single high-volume institution. METHODS: With IRB approval, a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy from 2012 to January 2024 was reviewed. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). RESULTS: Of the 530 robotic hepatectomies, 231 (44%) were minor, 133 (25%) were technically major, and 166 (31%) were major resections. Patients were 63 (61±14.7) years old with a BMI of 28 (29±7.9). Cirrhosis was present in 80 (19%) of patients, with an ASA score of 3 (3±0.5), and MELD score of 7 (8±3.0). 280 (53%) had prior abdominal operations and 44 (8%) had prior liver resections. Operative time was 233 (260±130.7) minutes and estimated blood loss was 100 (165±205.0)mL. 353 (66%) of patients had hepatectomies for neoplastic disease. 500 (95%) had an R0 resection margin. Tumor size was 4 (5±3.6) cm. The total 90-day postoperative complications were 45 (8%) of which 21 (4%) were classified as major complications (Clavien-Dindo >3). The length of stay was 3 (4±3.7) days, and the 30-day readmission rate was 86 (16%). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 82%/65%/59% for colorectal liver metastases, 84%/68%/60% for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 79%/61%/50% for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: After a decade of application and optimization at a high-volume institution, the robotic approach has demonstrated its utility as a safe and effective approach to liver resections.

Effect of IWATE laparoscopic difficulty score on postoperative outcomes and costs for robotic hepatectomy: Are complex resections more expensive?

BACKGROUND: The IWATE criteria, a four-level classification system for laparoscopic hepatectomy, measures technical complexity but lacks studies on its impact on outcomes and costs, especially in robotic surgeries. This study evaluated the effects of technical complexity on perioperative outcomes and costs in robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: Since 2013, we prospectively followed 500 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were classified into four levels of IWATE scores; (low [0-3], intermediate [4-6], advanced [7-9], and expert [10-12]) determined by tumor characteristics, liver function and resection extent. Perioperative variables were analyzed with significance accepted at a p-value ≤.05. RESULTS: Among 500 patients, 337 (67%) underwent advanced to expert-level operations. Median operative duration was 213 min (range: 16-817 min; mean ± SD: 240 ± 116.1 min; p < .001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 95 mL (range: 0-3500 mL; mean ± SD:142 ± 171.1 mL; p < .001). Both operative duration and EBL showed positive correlations with increasing IWATE scores. Median length of stay (LOS) of 3 days (range: 0-34; mean ± SD:4 ± 3.0 days; p < .001) significantly correlated with IWATE score. Total cost of $25 388 (range: $84-354 407; mean ± SD: 29752 ± 20106.8; p < .001) also significantly correlated with operative complexity, however hospital reimbursement did not. No correlation was found between IWATE score and postoperative complications or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical variables such as operative duration, EBL, and LOS correlate with IWATE difficulty scores in robotic hepatectomy. Financial metrics such as costs but not reimbursement received by the hospital correlate with IWATE scores.

Is the robotic approach the future of distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy? A propensity score matched analysis.

Our study provides a comparative analysis of the Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) and robotic surgical approaches for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, examining their cosmetic advantages, patient outcomes, and operative efficiencies through propensity score matching (PSM). We prospectively followed 174 patients undergoing either the LESS or robotic procedure, matched by cell type, tumor size, age, sex, and BMI from 2012 to 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized for data adjustment, with results presented as median (mean ± SD). Post-PSM analysis showed no significant differences in age or BMI between the two groups. LESS approach exhibited a shorter operative duration (180(180 ± 52.0) vs. 248(262 ± 78.5) minutes, p = 0.0002), but increased estimated blood loss (200(317 ± 394.4) vs. 100 (128 ± 107.2) mL, p = 0.04). Rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, readmissions within 30 days, in-hospital mortalities, and costs were comparably similar between the two procedures. While the robotic approach led to lower blood loss, LESS was more time-efficient. Patient outcomes were similar in both methods, suggesting that the choice between these surgical techniques should balance cosmetic appeal with technical considerations.

The Oncological Stress Test of Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review in Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Therapy Compared to Upfront Resection Approach for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, increasingly diagnosed in the United States, has a disheartening initial resection rate of 15%. Neoadjuvant therapy, particularly FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-based regimens, is gaining favor for its potential to improve resectability rates and achieving microscopically negative margins (R0) in borderline resectable cases, marked by intricate arterial or venous involvement. Despite surgery being the sole curative approach, actual benefit of neoadjuvant therapy remains debatable. This study scrutinizes current literature on oncological outcomes post-resection of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to systematically compare oncological outcomes of patients treated with either neoadjuvant therapy with intent of curative resection or an "upfront resection" approach. A total of 1293 studies were initially screened and 30 were included (n = 1714) in this analysis. All studies included data on outcomes of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma being treated with neoadjuvant therapy (n = 1387) or a resection-first approach (n = 356). Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy underwent resection 52% of the time, achieving negative margins of 43% (n = 601). Approximately 77% of patients who received an upfront resection underwent a successful resection, with 39% achieving negative margins. Neoadjuvant therapy remains marginally efficacious in treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as patients undergo an operation and successful resection less often when treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Rates of curative resection are comparable, despite neoadjuvant therapy being a primary recommendation in borderline resectable cases and employed more often than upfront resection. Upfront resection may offer improved resection rates by intention-to-treat, which can provide more patients with paths to curative resection.

Outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without preoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy is an alternative method against the deleterious effects of ischemic/reperfusion (I/R) injury and its inflammatory response. This study assessed the effect of preoperative HBO2 on patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Study Design: Patients were randomized via a computer-generated algorithm. Patients in the HBO2 cohort received two sessions of HBO2 the evening before and the morning of surgery. Measurements of inflammatory mediators and self-assessed pain scales were determined pre-and postoperatively. In addition, perioperative variables and long-term survival were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Results: 33 patients were included; 17 received preoperative HBO2, and 16 did not. There were no intraoperative or postoperative statistical differences between patients with or without preoperative HBO2. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), IL-6, and IL-10 increased slightly before returning to normal, while TGF-alpha decreased before increasing. However, there were no differences with or without HBO2. At postoperative day 30, the pain level measured with VAS score (Visual Analog Score) was lower after HBO2 (1 ± 1.3 vs. 3 ± 3.0, p=0.05). Eleven (76%) patients in the HBO2 cohort and 12 (75%) patients in the non- HBO2 had malignant pathology. The percentage of positive lymph nodes in the HBO2 was 7% compared to 14% in the non-HBO2 (p<0.001). Overall survival was inferior after HBO2 compared to the non- HBO2 (p=0.03). Conclusions: Preoperative HBO2 did not affect perioperative outcomes or significantly change the inflammatory mediators for patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Long-term survival was inferior after preoperative HBO2. Further randomized controlled studies are required to assess the full impact of this treatment on patients' prognosis.

The robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach to biliary tract resection and reconstruction for benign indications: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Benign biliary disease (BBD) is a prevalent condition involving patients who require extrahepatic bile duct resections and reconstructions due to nonmalignant causes. METHODS: This study followed all patients who underwent biliary resections for BBD between 2015 and 2023. We excluded those with malignant conditions and patients who had an 'open' operation. Based on the patient's anatomy, the procedures employed were either robotic Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (RYHJ) or robotic choledochoduodenostomy (CDD). RESULTS: From the 33 patients studied, 23 were female, and 10 were male. Anesthesiology (ASA) class was 3 ± 0.5; the MELD score was 9 ± 4.1; the Child-Pugh score was 6 ± 1.7. The primary indications for undergoing the operation included iatrogenic bile duct injuries, biliary strictures, and type 1 choledochal cysts. The average surgical duration was about 272 min, and the average blood loss amounted to 79 mL. Postoperatively, three patients experienced major complications, all attributed to anastomotic leaks. The average hospital stay was 4 days, with a readmission rate of 15% within 30 days. During an average follow-up period of 33 months, one patient had to undergo a revision at 18 months due to stricture. This necessitated further duct resection and reanastomosis. Notably, there were no reported hepatectomies, no conversion to the 'open' method, no intraoperative complications, and no mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic extrahepatic bile duct resection and reconstruction with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy or choledochoduodenostomy is safe with an acceptable postoperative morbidity, short hospital length of stay, and low postoperative stricture rate at intermediate duration follow-up.

Robotic Left Hepatectomy with En Bloc Biliary Resection and Roux-en-Y Hepaticojejunostomy: A Technique of Portal Venous Tangential Vascular Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Robotic technology is increasingly utilized in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma treatments, requiring expertise in minimally invasive liver surgeries and biliary reconstructions. These resections often involve vascular and multiple sectoral bile duct reconstructions. Minimally invasive vascular repairs are now emerging with promising outcomes, potentially altering criteria for selecting minimally invasive hepatobiliary tumor resections. In this multimedia article, we describe our technique of robotic portal venous tangential primary reconstruction with right sectoral bile duct unification ductoplasty for the treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma using the robotic approach. METHODS: The robotic technique was chosen in this operation with preoperative anticipation of needing vascular resection and reconstruction due to left portal vein tumor involvement. Additionally, a Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy to the right anterior and posterior sectoral duct was planned for biliary reconstruction. Proximal and distal vascular control of the portal vein bifurcation was obtained by placing vascular bulldog clamps across the main and right portal veins. Once an R0 vascular margin was obtained on the left portal vein, portal bifurcation was tangentially repaired. Perfusion to the liver was then restored, and left hemihepatectomy with en bloc extrahepatic biliary resection was carried out, followed by Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy reconstruction to the right anterior and posterior sectoral bile ducts, as a single anastomosis. RESULTS: The operation was uneventful without vascular or biliary complications. Robotic unification ductoplasty circumvented the need for multiple anastomoses. CONCLUSION: The robotic approach for left-sided perihilar cholangiocarcinoma resections, requiring precise biliovascular management, is safe, feasible, and efficient. This method demonstrates the potential of robotic techniques as an alternative to traditional open surgery.

Learning curve analysis after 500 robotic hepatectomies.

BACKGROUND: The robotic platform is growing in popularity for hepatobiliary resections. Although the learning curve for basic competency has been reported, this is the first study to analyze the learning curve to achieve long-term mastery on a decade of experience with more than 500 robotic hepatectomies. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, 500 consecutive robotic hepatectomies from 2013 to 2023 were analyzed. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis using operative duration was used to determine the learning curves. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients were included in this study: composed of 230 men (46.0 %) and 270 women (54.0 %), aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.6) years, with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 8.0) kg/m2, a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7 (8 ± 3.0), an albumin-bilirubin score of -3.0 (-3.0 ± 0.6), and a Child-Pugh score of 5.0 (5.0 ± 0.7). Operative duration was 235.0 (260.1 ± 131.9) minutes, estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 208.1) mL, tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.5) cm, and 94.0 % of patients achieved R0 margins. The length of hospital stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, with 4.0 % of patient having major complications. Of note, 30-day readmission was 17.0 %, 30-day mortality was 2.0 %, and 90-day mortality was 3.0 %. On CUSUM analysis, the learning curve for minor resection (n = 215) was 75 cases, major resection (n = 154) was 100 cases, and technically challenging minor resection (n = 131) was 57 cases. Gaining more experience in performing surgical procedures resulted in shorter operative duration, lower blood loss, higher R0 resections, and lower major postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: The minimum number of robotic hepatectomies to overcome the learning curves for mastery of minor, major, and technically challenging minor resections was significant. Our study can help guide surgeons in their early experience to optimize patient safety and outcomes.

Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system. RESULTS: Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSION: In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

A decade of experience with minimally invasive anti-reflux operations: robot vs. LESS.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of robotic systems for anti-reflux operations prompted this study to evaluate and compare the efficacy of robotic and Laparo-Endoscopic Single-Site (LESS) approaches. METHODS: From 2012, 228 robotic fundoplication and 518 LESS fundoplication patients were prospectively followed, analyzing perioperative metrics. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD); significance at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Patients undergoing a robotic vs. LESS fundoplication were 67 (64 ± 13.7) vs. 61 (59 ± 15.1) years-old with BMIs of 25 (25 ± 3.2) vs. 26 (25 ± 3.9) kg/m2 (p = 0.001 and 1.00, respectively). 72% of patients who underwent the robotic approach had a previous abdominal operation(s) vs 44% who underwent the LESS approach (p = 0.0001). 38% vs. 8% had a re-operative fundoplication (p = 0.0001), 59% vs. 45% had a type IV hiatal hernia (p = 0.0004). Operative duration was 160 (176 ± 76.7) vs. 130 (135 ± 50.5) min (p = 0.0001). There were 0 (robotic) vs. 5 (LESS) conversions to a different approach (p = 0.33). 5 Patients vs. 3 patients experienced postoperative complications (p = 0.06), and length of stay (LOS) was 1 (2 ± 2.6) vs. 1 (1 ± 3.2) days (p = 0.0001). Patient symptomatic dysphagia preoperatively for the robotic vs. LESS approach was scored as 2 (2.4 ± 1.9) vs. 1 (1.9 ± 1.6). Postoperatively, symptomatic dysphagia was scored as 1 (1.5 ± 1.6) vs. 1 (1.7 ± 1.7). The change in these scores was - 1 (- 1 ± 2.2) vs. 0 (- 0.5 ± 2.2) (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Despite longer operative times and LOS in older patients, the robotic approach is efficient in undertaking very difficult operations, including patients with type IV or recurrent hiatal hernias. Furthermore, preoperative anti-reflux operations were more likely to be undertaken with the robotic approach than the LESS approach. The patient's postoperative symptomatic dysphagia improved relatively more than after the LESS approach. The vast majority of patients who underwent the LESS approach enjoyed improved cosmesis, thus, making LESS a stronger candidate for more routine operations. Despite patient selection bias, the robotic and LESS approaches to anti-reflux operations are safe, efficacious, and should be situationally utilized.

Weighing the outcomes: the role of BMI in complex robotic esophageal and hepatobiliary operations.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between body mass index (BMI) and surgical outcomes has emerged as a critical consideration in complex abdominal operations. While elevated BMI is often associated with increased perioperative risk, its specific effects on the outcomes of robotic surgeries remain inadequately explored. This study assesses the impact of BMI on perioperative variables of complex esophageal and hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) robotic operations. METHODS: Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 607 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE), major liver resection or distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, all performed robotically. Perioperative data retrieved included operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions to an 'open' operation and length of stay (LOS). Z scores were assigned to each variable to standardize operations, and the variables were then regressed against BMI. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median(mean ± standard deviation). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2020, surgeries included 71 THE, 122 distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, 129 major hepatectomies and 285 pancreaticoduodenectomies. Median age was 67(65 ± 12.5) years old, and BMI was 27(28 ± 5.5) kg/m2. Operative duration for all operations was 349(355 ± 124.5) min and had a positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.004), specifically for robotic THE and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with both operative durations having positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05). No significant correlation with BMI was found for EBL, intraoperative or postoperative complications, conversion to 'open' surgery, or LOS. CONCLUSION: Elevated BMI is associated with longer operative durations in select robotic surgeries, such as trans-hiatal esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, and highlights the need for strategic planning in these patients.

Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05. RESULTS: IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05). DISCUSSION: Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.

Effect of insurance status on perioperative outcomes after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis.

The influence of Medicaid or being uninsured is prevailingly thought to negatively impact a patient's socioeconomic and postoperative course, yet little has been published to support this claim specifically in reference to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study was undertaken to determine impact of health insurance type on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 364 patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were stratified by insurance status (i.e., Private, Medicare, and Medicaid/Uninsured); 100 patients were 2:2:1 propensity-score matched by age, BMI, ASA class, pathology, 8th edition AJCC staging, and tumor size. Perioperative variables were compared utilizing contingency testing and ANOVA. Statistical significance was accepted at a p-value ≤ 0.05 and data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The 100 patients undergoing propensity-score matching were 64 (65 ± 9.1) years old with a BMI of 27 (27 ± 4.9) kg/m2 and ASA class of 3 (3 ± 0.5). Operative duration was 421 (428 ± 105.9) minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 (385 ± 795.0) mL. There were 4 in-hospital deaths and 8 readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Total hospital cost was $32,064 (38,014 ± 22,205.94). After matching, no differences were found in pre-, intra-, and short-term postoperative variables among patients with different insurances, including hospital cost and time to initiate adjuvant treatment, which was 8 (9 ± 7.9) weeks for patients with malignant disease. In our hepatopancreaticobiliary program, health insurance status did not impact perioperative outcomes or hospital costs. These findings highlight that financial coverage does not influence quality of perioperative care, reinforcing the equity of robotic surgery.

Cost comparison between medicare and private insurance for robotic transhiatal esophagectomy.

Esophageal cancer is a significant health concern, with the robotic platform being increasingly adopted for transhiatal esophagectomy (THE). While literature exists regarding the cost of robotic THE and its benefits, there is limited data analyzing cost and concurrent hospital reimbursement based on payor or provider. This study aimed to compare hospital reimbursement after robotic THE for patients with Medicare versus private insurance. With IRB approval, a prospective study of 85 patients from 2012 to 2022 who underwent robotic THE was conducted. Private insurance was defined as coverage excluding Medicare, Medicaid, or self-pay. Statistical analyses involved Student's t test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test, with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). Among the 85 patients, 64 had Medicare, and 21 had private insurance. Medicare patients exhibited more frequent history of prior abdominal or thoracic surgeries (41% vs 10%, p < 0.01). Both groups showed no differences in factors like sex, body mass index, ASA classification, operative duration, estimated blood loss, conversions to 'open', tumor size, and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III). Similarly, metrics such as hospital stay duration, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and various financial components including total and variable costs, hospital reimbursement, and net margin were consistent across both. Despite Medicare patients being older and often having a broader operative history, hospital costs and reimbursements did not differ from patients with private insurance post-robotic THE. The robotic platform appears to mitigate potential disparities in hospitalization costs and hospital reimbursement for THE between Medicare and private insurance.

Epidural versus general anesthesia for laparo-endoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study compares outcomes after LESS cholecystectomy utilizing epidural versus general anesthesia. METHODS: Patients undergoing LESS Cholecystectomy were randomized into receiving epidural or general anesthesia by protocol. Patients used a Visual Analog Scale to rate pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (severe pain). Data presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). RESULTS: 75 patients underwent LESS cholecystectomy with general anesthesia [32 patients (22% men) after five patients withdrew consent] or epidural anesthesia [23 patients (22% men) after 15 patients withdrew consent]. Respectively, they were of age 38 years (41 ± 15.1) and 47 years (48 ± 13.9), BMI 29 (28 ± 4.9) kg/m2 and 28 (28 ± 3.8) kg/m2, and ASA 2 (2 ± 0.5) and 2 (2 ± 0.3) (p > 0.05 for all). LOS for patients receiving general vs. epidural anesthesia was 72 min (122 ± 104.4) vs. 95 min (113 ± 77.5) (p = 0.25). On POD 0, patients receiving general anesthesia rated pain as 4 (4 ± 2.9) vs. 0 (1 ± 2.2) for epidural anesthesia (p = 0.02). On POD 1, they rated pain as 6 (5 ± 2.3) vs. 6 (6 ± 2.9) (p = 0.68). On POD 6, patients rated pain as 3 (3 ± 2.7) vs. 4 (3 ± 2.2) (p = 1.00). For patient satisfaction with incisional scars for those receiving general vs. epidural anesthesia, patients rated their scars to be 10 (8 ± 3.6) vs. 10 (9 ± 1.2) (p = 0.21). Total costs for the hospital using general vs. epidural anesthesia were found $6,909 (7,167 ± 2,083.8) vs. $6,225 (5,848 ± 1530.1) (p = 0.014), respectively. Patients self-assessed satisfaction on a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best) as a 5 (5 ± 0). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy with general vs. epidural anesthesia had similar demographics, LOS, and pain scores. Patients that received epidural anesthesia reported less pain and incurred less cost. Utilization of epidural anesthesia in lieu of general anesthesia for LESS cholecystectomy is safe, reduces pain, and offers potential cost savings.

Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: short-term outcomes and suggested stepwise approach for a safe conversion.

OBJECTIVE: With the increased adoption of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, the effects of unplanned conversions to an 'open' operation are ill-defined. This study aims to describe the impact of unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy on short-term outcomes and suggest a stepwise approach for safe unplanned conversions during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: This is an analysis of 400 consecutive patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single high-volume institution. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD), and significance is accepted with 95% probability. RESULTS: Between November 2012 and February 2023, 184 (46%) women and 216 (54%) men, aged 70 (68 ± 11.0) years, underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Unplanned conversions occurred in 42 (10.5%) patients; 18 (5%) were converted due to unanticipated vascular involvement, 13 (3%) due to failure to obtain definitive control of bleeding, and 11 (3%) due to visceral obesity. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women (29 vs. 13, p = 0.05). Conversions were associated with shorter operative time (376 (323 ± 182.2) vs. 434 (441 ± 98.7) min, p < 0.0001) but higher estimated blood loss (675 (1010 ± 1168.1) vs. 150 (196 ± 176.8) mL, p < 0.0001). Patients that required an unplanned conversion had higher rates of complications with Clavien-Dindo scores of III-V (31% vs. 12%, p = 0.003), longer length of stay (8 (11 ± 11.6) vs. 5 (7 ± 6.2), p = 0.0005), longer ICU length of stay (1 (2 ± 5.1) vs. 0 (0 ± 1.3), p < 0.0001) and higher mortality rates (21% vs. 4%, p = 0.0001). The conversion rate significantly decreased over time (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy significantly and negatively affect short-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women. The unplanned conversions rates significantly decreased over time, implying that increased proficiency and patient selection may prevent unplanned conversions. An unplanned conversion should be undertaken in an organized stepwise approach to maximize patient safety.

The Implications of Readmission on Cost and Patient Outcomes Following Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic platform usage for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy has grown exponentially in recent years. This study aims to identify the impact of readmission following robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy and to analyze the financial implications of these readmissions. METHODS: We prospectively followed 137 patients after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Readmission was defined as rehospitalization within 30 days post-discharge. Total cost incorporated initial and readmission hospital costs, when applicable. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square/Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Of 137 patients, 20 (14%) were readmitted. Readmitted patients were 67 (66 ± 10.3) years old and had a BMI of 30 (30 ± 7.0) kg/m2; 9 (45%) had previous abdominal operations. Non-readmitted patients were 67 (62 ± 14.7) years old and had a BMI of 28 (28 ± 5.7) kg/m2; 37 (32%) had previous abdominal operations (P = NS, for all). Readmitted patients vs non-readmitted patients had operative durations of 327 (363 ± 179.1) vs 251 (293 ± 176.4) minutes (P = .10), estimated blood loss (EBL) of 90 (159 ± 214.6) vs 100 (244 ± 559.4) mL (P = .50), and tumor diameter of 3 (4 ± 2.0) vs 3 (4 ± 2.9) cm (P = 1.00). Initial length of stay (LOS) for readmitted patients vs patients who were not readmitted was 5 (5 ± 2.7) vs 4 (5 ± 3.0) days (P = 1.00); total hospital cost of those readmitted, including both admissions, was $29,095 (32,324 ± 20,227.38) vs $24,663 (25,075 ± 10,786.45) (P = .018) for those not readmitted. DISCUSSION: Despite a similar perioperative course, readmissions were associated with increased costs. We propose thorough consideration before readmission and increased patient education initiatives will reduce readmissions after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Analysis of survival outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for malignant liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased adoption of the robotic platform for complex hepatobiliary resections for malignant disease, little is known about long-term survival outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term survival rates after a robotic hepatectomy for five major malignant disease processes. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease was reviewed. Pathologies included colorectal liver metastases (CLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), Klatskin tumor, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gallbladder cancer (GC). Data are presented as median (mean â€‹± â€‹standard deviation) for illustrative purposes. RESULTS: Of the 210 consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease, 75 (35 â€‹%) had CLM, 69 (33 â€‹%) had HCC, 27 (13 â€‹%) had Klatskin tumor, 20 (10 â€‹%) had IHCC, and 19 (9 â€‹%) had GC. Patients were 66 (65 â€‹± â€‹12.4) years old with a BMI of 29 (29 â€‹± â€‹6.5) kg/m2. R0 resection was achieved in 91 â€‹%, and 65 â€‹% underwent a major hepatectomy. Postoperative major complication rate was 6 â€‹%, length of stay was four (5 â€‹± â€‹4.3) days, and 30-day readmission rate was 17 â€‹%. Survival at 1, 3, and 5-years were 93 â€‹%/75 â€‹%/72 â€‹% for CLM, 84 â€‹%/71 â€‹%/64 â€‹% for HCC, 73 â€‹%/55 â€‹%/55 â€‹% for Klatskin tumor, 80 â€‹%/69 â€‹%/69 â€‹% for IHCC, 79 â€‹%/65 â€‹%/65 â€‹% for GC. CONCLUSION: This study suggests a favorable 5-year overall survival benefit with use of the robotic platform in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Klatskin tumor, and gallbladder cancer. The robotic platform facilitates fine dissection in complex hepatobiliary operations, with a high rate of R0 resections and excellent perioperative clinical outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A First, Multicenter, Trans-Atlantic, Expert-Center, Collaborative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is a difficult cancer to treat with frequent vascular invasion, local recurrence, and poor survival. Due to the need for biliary anastomosis and potential vascular resection, the standard approach is an open operation. Suboptimal outcomes after laparoscopic resection had been sporadically reported by high-volume centers. In this first, Trans-Atlantic, multicenter study, we report our outcomes of robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. This is the largest study of its kind in the Western hemisphere. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2023, we prospectively followed patients undergoing robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at three, high-volume, robotic, liver-surgery centers. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients underwent perihilar cholangiocarcinoma utilizing the robotic technique; Klatskin type-3 was the most common. The median age was 72 years, and 82% of the patients underwent preoperative biliary drainage. Median operative time was 481 minutes with a median estimated blood loss of 200 mL. The number of harvested lymph nodes was seven, and 11 (28%) patients yielded positive lymph nodes. Three patients required vascular reconstruction; 18% of patients had >1 biliary anastomosis. R0 resection margins were achieved in 82% of patients. Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3 complications were seen in 16% of patients. The length of stay was 6 days. Five patients had an unplanned readmission within 30 days. One patient died within 30 days. With a median follow-up of 15 months, 68% of patients are alive without disease, 13% recurred, and 19% died. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the robotic platform for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible with acceptable short-term clinical and oncological outcomes.