Cost-Benefit Analysis of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.

BACKGROUND: Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies having increased utilization as minimally invasive techniques are explored for hepatobiliary malignancies. Although the data on outcomes from these 2 approaches are emerging, the cost-benefit analysis of these approaches remains sparse. This study compares the costs associated with robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resections, taking into account 30-day complications. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, a propensity-matched cohort of patients with laparoscopic or robotic liver resections between 2014 and 2017 was identified. Costs were assigned to perioperative variables, including operating room (OR) time, length of stay, blood transfusions, and 30-day complications. Cost estimates were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services billing data (2017), American Hospital Association data (2017), relevant literature, and local institutional cost data. RESULTS: In our matched cohort of 454 patients (227 per group), total costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections were estimated at $5.5 M ($24 K per patient) vs. $6.8 M ($29.8 K per patient) for robotic liver resections (21.3% difference, P < .001). The higher cost associated with robotic hepatectomies was related to blood transfusions ($22.0 K vs. $12.1 K, P = .02), length of stay ($2.05 M vs. $1.76 M, P = .046), and OR time ($4.01 M vs. $3.24 M, P < .0001). DISCUSSION: Robotic hepatectomies were associated with higher costs compared to laparoscopic hepatectomies. The 2 major contributors to the cost disparity were increased OR time and increased length of stay. Future studies are warranted to analyze high-volume Minimally Invasive Surgery surgeons' impact in specialty centers on potentially mitigating this current cost disparity.

Simple Versus Radical Resection for Duodenal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Duodenal adenocarcinoma treatment consists of either simple or radical surgical resection. Existing evidence suggests similar survival outcomes between the two but is limited by small numbers and single-institution analysis. We aim to compare survival after partial versus radical resection for duodenal adenocarcinoma using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: Using NCDB results from 2004 to 2014, we compared patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma undergoing partial resection (n = 1247) and radical resection (n = 1240) by age, sex, facility type, facility location, cancer stage, cancer grade, lymph node sampling, node status, tumor size, margin status, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy using chi-square analysis. Survival was compared using propensity matching. RESULTS: Patients undergoing partial resection had overall earlier cancer stage, more favorable tumor grade, and were less likely to undergo lymph node sampling and neoadjuvant therapy. When overall survival was compared between the 2 propensity-matched groups, the median survival was 46.7 months after partial resection and 43.2 months after radical resection (P = .329), and overall survival was similar between the 2 groups (P = .894). The use of adjuvant therapy demonstrated improved survival over either surgery alone (P < .0001, P = .0037). CONCLUSION: Partial resection did not demonstrate worse survival outcomes than radical resection for duodenal adenocarcinoma. The use of adjuvant therapy in addition to surgery demonstrated improved survival regardless of surgery type and played a larger role in survival than the type of surgery. Our findings provide evidence to support the continued use of both partial and radical surgical resections to treat duodenal malignancy.

Primary Malignancy Is an Independent Determinant of Morbidity and Mortality after Liver Resection.

Although outcomes after liver resection have improved, there remains considerable perioperative morbidity and mortality with these procedures. Studies suggest a primary liver cancer diagnosis is associated with poorer outcomes, but the extent to which this is attributable to a higher degree of hepatic dysfunction is unclear. To better delineate this, we performed a matched pair analysis of primary versus metastatic malignancies using a national database. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2013) was analyzed to select elective liver resections. Diagnoses were sorted as follows: 1) primary liver cancers and 2) metastatic neoplasms. A literature review identified factors known to impact hepatectomy outcomes; these variables were evaluated by a univariate analysis. The most predictive factors were used to create similar groups from each diagnosis category via propensity matching. Multivariate regression was used to validate results in the wider study population. Outcomes were compared using chi-squared test and Fisher exact test. Matched groups of 4838 patients were similar by all variables, including indicators of liver function. A number of major complications were significantly more prevalent with a primary diagnosis; overall major morbidity rates in the metastatic and primary groups were 29.3 versus 41.6 per cent, respectively. The mortality rate for primary neoplasms was 4.6 per cent (vs 1.6%); this represents a risk of death nearly three-times greater (95% confidence interval = 2.20-3.81, P < 0.0001) in cancers of hepatic origin. Hepatectomy carries substantially higher perioperative risk when performed for primary liver cancers, independent of hepatic function and resection extent. This knowledge will help to improve treatment planning, patient education, and resource allocation in oncologic liver resection.