Cost analysis of robotic assisted general surgery cases in a single academic institution.

Laparoscopy is currently the standard approach for minimally invasive general surgery procedures. However, robotic surgery is now increasingly being used in general surgery. Robotic surgery provides several advantages such as 3D-visualization, articulated instruments, improved ergonomics, and increased dexterity, but is also associated with an increased overall cost which limits its widespread use. In our institution, the robotic assisted approach is frequently used for the performance of general surgery cases including inguinal hernias, cholecystectomies and paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repairs. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the differences in cost between a robotic and laparoscopic approach for the above-mentioned cases. With IRB approval, we conducted a retrospective cost analysis of patients undergoing inguinal hernia repairs, cholecystectomies and PEH repairs between June 2018 and November 2020. Patients who had a concomitant procedure, a revisional surgery, or bilateral inguinal hernia repair were excluded from the study. Cost analysis was performed using a micro-costing approach. Statistical significance was denoted by p < 0.05. There were no differences among the different groups in relation to age, gender, ethnicity, and BMI. The overall cost of the robotic (R-) approach compared to a laparoscopic (L-) approach was significantly lower for cholecystectomy ($3,199.96 vs $4019.89, p < 0.05). For inguinal hernia repairs and PEH repairs without mesh, we found no significant difference in overall costs between the R- and L- approach (R- $3835.06 vs L- $3783.50, p = 0.69) and (R- $6852.41 vs L- $6819.69, p = 0.97), respectively. However, the overall cost of PEH with mesh was significantly higher for the R- group compared to the L- group (R- $7,511.09 vs L- $6,443.32, p < 0.05). Based on our institutional cost data, use of a robotic approach when performing certain general surgery cases does not seem to be cost prohibitive.

Thirty-day outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: first report based on Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database.

BACKGROUND: According to recent American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery estimates, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most commonly performed procedure in the United States (~53.8% of all bariatric procedures), followed by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB; 23.1% of all procedures). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes and safety of these 2 procedures in the first 30 days postoperatively using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry. SETTING: University health network, United States. METHODS: We reviewed all SG and RYGB cases entered between January 1 and December 31, 2015 in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry. Demographic characteristics and 30-day outcomes were analyzed based on separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests, χ2, or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate, with P<.05 denoting statistical significance and no adjustment for multiple testing. RESULTS: A total of 141,646 patients were analyzed; 98,292 underwent SG and 43,354 underwent RYGB. Average age was 44.5 and 45.4 years for SG and RYGB, respectively. Preoperative body mass index was 45.1 and 46.1 for SG and RYGB, respectively. The 30-day mortality was .1% for SG and .2% for RYGB (P<.05). The incidence of unplanned intensive care unit admission after RYGB was twice as high compared with SG (1.3% versus .6%, respectively, P<.05). The incidence of at least 1 intervention or reoperation after RYGB was significantly higher compared with SG (2.8% and 2.5% for GB versus 1.2% and 1% for SG, P<.05). After RYGB, .4% of patients had a drain left in place at 30 days postoperatively versus .3% for SG (P<.05). The incidence of readmission was 2.8% for RYGB and 1.2% for SG (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of postoperative complications in the first 30 days after surgery is low for both RYGB and SG. However, SG seems to have a better safety profile in the first 30 days postoperatively compared with RYGB. These findings should be considered in the preoperative evaluation and counseling of bariatric patients. Long-term follow-up is needed to compare safety and efficacy of SG versus RYGB.

Progression to surgery: online versus live seminar.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate progression to surgery rates for live and online seminar and assess weight loss outcome comparisons at 1-year postoperation. SETTING: University Hospital Network, Allentown, PA, USA. METHODS: The entry point into our program was an information seminar where prospective patients are educated about obesity, bariatric surgery, indications and contraindications, risks and benefits, and our center's process. Between January of 2009 and November of 2011, only live information seminars were offered. In November of 2011, we started offering an online information seminar to reach those who are unable to attend a live seminar. Tracking of live versus online seminar attendance was documented in our database. RESULTS: Between November 1, 2011 and September 30, 2015, 3484 people completed an information seminar. Of those, 2744 attendees came to a live seminar while 740 completed the online seminar. A significantly higher number of live seminar attendees, 78.1% (2144/2744) progressed to an office visit compared with online seminar attendees 66.5% (492/740), P<.0001. Similarly significant, 40.1% (1101/2744) of live seminar attendees progressed to surgery versus 29.7% (220/740) of online attendees (P<.0001). Sex (78.2% female for live seminar versus 79.5% female for online seminar, P = .65) and initial body mass index (46.3 ± 7.4 for live seminar versus 45.3 ± 7.1 for online seminar, P = .09) were very similar between the groups. Online seminar attendees' age (42.7 ± 12.1) was younger than that of the live seminar attendees' (47.3 ± 12.3) (P<.0001) but has little clinical value. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that live seminar attendees are more likely to progress to surgery and therefore should continue to be offered.