Kevin C Conlon1, Thijs de Rooij2, Jony van Hilst2, Mohammad Abu Hidal3, Julie Fleshman4, Mark Talamonti5, Tsafrir Vanounou6, Richard Garfinkle6, Vic Velanovich7, David Kooby8, Charles M Vollmer9. 1. Professorial Surgical Unit, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: profsurg@tcd.ie. 2. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Southampton, United Kingdom. 4. Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Manhattan Beach, CA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, North Shore University Health System, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Gerald Bronfman, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 7. Division of General Surgery, The University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 8. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 9. Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed for benign or malignant disease, have increased in recent years. However, there is limited information regarding cost/value implications. METHODS: An international conference evaluating MIPR was held during the 12th Bi-Annual International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) World Congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on April 20th, 2016. This manuscript summarizes the presentations that reviewed current topics in cost and value as they pertain to MIPR. RESULTS: Compared to the open approach, MIPR's are associated with higher operative costs but lower postoperative costs. However, measurements of patient value (defined as improvement in both quantity and quality of life) and financial value (using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) are required to determine the true value at societal level. CONCLUSION: Challenges remain as to how the potential benefits, both to the patient and the healthcare system as a whole, are measured. Research comparing MIPR versus other techniques for pancreatectomy will require appropriate and valid measurement tools, some of which are yet to be refined. Nonetheless, the experience to date would support the continued development of MIPR by experienced surgeons in high-volume pancreatic centers, married with appropriate review and recalibration.
BACKGROUND: The number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed for benign or malignant disease, have increased in recent years. However, there is limited information regarding cost/value implications. METHODS: An international conference evaluating MIPR was held during the 12th Bi-Annual International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) World Congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on April 20th, 2016. This manuscript summarizes the presentations that reviewed current topics in cost and value as they pertain to MIPR. RESULTS: Compared to the open approach, MIPR's are associated with higher operative costs but lower postoperative costs. However, measurements of patient value (defined as improvement in both quantity and quality of life) and financial value (using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) are required to determine the true value at societal level. CONCLUSION: Challenges remain as to how the potential benefits, both to the patient and the healthcare system as a whole, are measured. Research comparing MIPR versus other techniques for pancreatectomy will require appropriate and valid measurement tools, some of which are yet to be refined. Nonetheless, the experience to date would support the continued development of MIPR by experienced surgeons in high-volume pancreatic centers, married with appropriate review and recalibration.
Authors: Emanuel Eguia; Paul C Kuo; Patrick Sweigert; Marc Nelson; Gerard V Aranha; Gerard Abood; Constantine V Godellas; Marshall S Baker Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Jony van Hilst; Koop Bosscha; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Michael F Gerhards; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Jeroen Hagendoorn; Ignace H de Hingh; Tom M Karsten; Daan J Lips; Misha D Luyer; I Quintus Molenaar; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; T C Khé Tran; Olivier R Busch; Sebastiaan Festen; Marc G Besselink Journal: Trials Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: J van Hilst; E A Strating; T de Rooij; F Daams; S Festen; B Groot Koerkamp; J M Klaase; M Luyer; M G Dijkgraaf; M G Besselink Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Christian Benzing; Lea Timmermann; Thomas Winklmann; Lena Marie Haiden; Karl Herbert Hillebrandt; Axel Winter; Max Magnus Maurer; Matthäus Felsenstein; Felix Krenzien; Moritz Schmelzle; Johann Pratschke; Thomas Malinka Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 2.895