Gregorio Di Franco1,2, Valentina Lorenzoni3, Matteo Palmeri1,2, Niccolò Furbetta1,2, Simone Guadagni1,2, Desirée Gianardi1,2, Matteo Bianchini1,2, Luca Emanuele Pollina4, Franca Melfi2, Domenica Mamone5, Carlo Milli6, Giulio Di Candio1,2, Giuseppe Turchetti3, Luca Morelli7,8,9. 1. General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56125, Pisa, Italy. 2. Multidisciplinary Center of Robotic Surgery, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 3. Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy. 4. Second Division of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 5. Pharmaceutical Unit: Medical Device Management, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 6. Board of Directors, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 7. General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56125, Pisa, Italy. luca.morelli@unipi.it. 8. Multidisciplinary Center of Robotic Surgery, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. luca.morelli@unipi.it. 9. EndoCAS (Center for Computer Assisted Surgery), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. luca.morelli@unipi.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared. RESULTS: No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared. RESULTS: No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.
Authors: Joshua A Waters; David F Canal; Eric A Wiebke; Ryan P Dumas; Joal D Beane; Juan R Aguilar-Saavedra; Chad G Ball; Michael G House; Nicholas J Zyromski; Attila Nakeeb; Henry A Pitt; Keith D Lillemoe; C Max Schmidt Journal: Surgery Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Martijn Z Lu; M Willemijn Steen; Michael F Gerhards; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Olivier R Busch; Daan J Lips; Sebastiaan Festen; Marc G Besselink Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: A Floortje van Oosten; Ding Ding; Joseph R Habib; Ahmer Irfan; Ryan K Schmocker; Elisabetta Sereni; Benedict Kinny-Köster; Michael Wright; Vincent P Groot; I Quintus Molenaar; John L Cameron; Martin Makary; Richard A Burkhart; William R Burns; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Robert J Torphy; Chloe Friedman; Alison Halpern; Brandon C Chapman; Steven S Ahrendt; Martin M McCarter; Barish H Edil; Richard D Schulick; Ana Gleisner Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 12.969