Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 3/2021

01-03-2021 | Pancreatectomy

Cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study

Authors: Matteo De Pastena, Alessandro Esposito, Salvatore Paiella, Niccolò Surci, Greta Montagnini, Giovanni Marchegiani, Giuseppe Malleo, Erica Secchettin, Luca Casetti, Claudio Ricci, Luca Landoni, Chiara Bovo, Claudio Bassi, Roberto Salvia

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 3/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

Method

All patients who underwent LDP or RDP from 2011 to 2017 and with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 12 months were included in the study. To minimize bias, a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) was performed. Two different questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D) were completed by the patients. The mean differential cost and mean differential Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane.

Results

The study population consisted of 152 patients. After having applied the propensity score matching, the final population included 103 patients divided into RDP group (n = 37, 36%) and LDP (n = 66, 64%). No differences were found between groups regarding the baseline, intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological variables (p > 0.05). The QoL analysis showed a significant improvement in the RDP group on the postoperative social function, nausea, vomiting, and financial status (p = 0.010, p = 0.050, and p = 0.030, respectively). As expected, the crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (12,053 Euros vs. 5519 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay of more than 4800 Euros/QALY was accepted.

Conclusion

RDP was associated with QoL improvement in specific domains. Crude costs were higher relative to LDP. Cost-effectiveness threshold resulted to be 4800 euros/QALY. The increasing worldwide diffusion of the robotic technology, with easier access and possible cost reduction, could increase the sustainability of this procedure.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Merchant NB, Parikh AA, Kooby DA (2009) Should all distal pancreatectomies be performed laparoscopically? Adv Surg 43:283–300CrossRef Merchant NB, Parikh AA, Kooby DA (2009) Should all distal pancreatectomies be performed laparoscopically? Adv Surg 43:283–300CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Dunnegan DL, Meininger TA (1994) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in the porcine model. Surg Endosc 8(1):57–60 discussion 60-61CrossRef Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Dunnegan DL, Meininger TA (1994) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in the porcine model. Surg Endosc 8(1):57–60 discussion 60-61CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Cuschieri A (1994) Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb 39(3):178–184PubMed Cuschieri A (1994) Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb 39(3):178–184PubMed
4.
go back to reference Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ (2010) Ten years of experience with resection of left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: evolution and initial experience to a laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 24(7):1533–1541CrossRef Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ (2010) Ten years of experience with resection of left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: evolution and initial experience to a laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 24(7):1533–1541CrossRef
5.
go back to reference van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S, Rawashdeh M, Aleotti F, Al-Sarireh B et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study. Ann Surg 269(1):10–17CrossRef van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S, Rawashdeh M, Aleotti F, Al-Sarireh B et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study. Ann Surg 269(1):10–17CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc 26(4):904–913CrossRef Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc 26(4):904–913CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Nigri GR, Rosman AS, Petrucciani N, Fancellu A, Pisano M, Zorcolo L et al (2011) Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies. Surg Endosc 25(5):1642–1651CrossRef Nigri GR, Rosman AS, Petrucciani N, Fancellu A, Pisano M, Zorcolo L et al (2011) Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies. Surg Endosc 25(5):1642–1651CrossRef
8.
go back to reference van Hilst J, Strating EA, de Rooij T, Daams F, Festen S, Groot Koerkamp B et al (2019) Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial). Br J Surg 106(7):910–921CrossRef van Hilst J, Strating EA, de Rooij T, Daams F, Festen S, Groot Koerkamp B et al (2019) Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial). Br J Surg 106(7):910–921CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24(7):1646–1657CrossRef Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24(7):1646–1657CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Zeh HJ, Bartlett DL, Moser AJ (2011) Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection. Adv Surg 45:323–340CrossRef Zeh HJ, Bartlett DL, Moser AJ (2011) Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection. Adv Surg 45:323–340CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zhou J-Y, Xin C, Mou Y-P, Xu X-W, Zhang M-Z, Zhou Y-C et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0151189CrossRef Zhou J-Y, Xin C, Mou Y-P, Xu X-W, Zhang M-Z, Zhou Y-C et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0151189CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR et al (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148(4):814–823CrossRef Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR et al (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148(4):814–823CrossRef
13.
go back to reference von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP et al (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet Lond Engl 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP et al (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet Lond Engl 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR (1996) Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276(16):1339–1341CrossRef Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR (1996) Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276(16):1339–1341CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Melotti G, Butturini G, Piccoli M, Casetti L, Bassi C, Mullineris B et al (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Ann Surg 246(1):77–82CrossRef Melotti G, Butturini G, Piccoli M, Casetti L, Bassi C, Mullineris B et al (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Ann Surg 246(1):77–82CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, Malleo G, Marchegiani G, Daskalaki D et al (2015) A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 29(11):3163–3170CrossRef Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, Malleo G, Marchegiani G, Daskalaki D et al (2015) A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 29(11):3163–3170CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Ramera M, Damoli I, Giardino A, Bassi C, Butturini G (2016) Robotic pancreatectomies. Robot Surg Auckl 3:29–36 Ramera M, Damoli I, Giardino A, Bassi C, Butturini G (2016) Robotic pancreatectomies. Robot Surg Auckl 3:29–36
18.
go back to reference Pulvirenti A, Landoni L, Borin A, De Pastena M, Fontana M, Pea A et al (2019) Reinforced stapler versus ultrasonic dissector for pancreatic transection and stump closure for distal pancreatectomy: a propensity matched analysis. Surgery 166(3):271–276CrossRef Pulvirenti A, Landoni L, Borin A, De Pastena M, Fontana M, Pea A et al (2019) Reinforced stapler versus ultrasonic dissector for pancreatic transection and stump closure for distal pancreatectomy: a propensity matched analysis. Surgery 166(3):271–276CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, Crippa S, Butturini G, Salvia R et al (2010) Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 252(2):207CrossRef Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, Crippa S, Butturini G, Salvia R et al (2010) Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 252(2):207CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRef Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584–591CrossRef Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584–591CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Bannone E, Andrianello S, Marchegiani G, Masini G, Malleo G, Bassi C et al (2018) Postoperative acute pancreatitis following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a determinant of fistula potentially driven by the intraoperative fluid management. Ann Surg 268(5):815–822CrossRef Bannone E, Andrianello S, Marchegiani G, Masini G, Malleo G, Bassi C et al (2018) Postoperative acute pancreatitis following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a determinant of fistula potentially driven by the intraoperative fluid management. Ann Surg 268(5):815–822CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768CrossRef Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142(1):20–25CrossRef Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142(1):20–25CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376CrossRef Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376CrossRef
26.
go back to reference EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy Amst Neth 16(3):199–208CrossRef EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy Amst Neth 16(3):199–208CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J (1998) Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 16(1):139–144CrossRef Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J (1998) Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 16(1):139–144CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Fenwick E, Byford S (2005) A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry J Ment Sci 187:106–108CrossRef Fenwick E, Byford S (2005) A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry J Ment Sci 187:106–108CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Nixon RM, Wonderling D, Grieve RD (2010) Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared. Health Econ 19(3):316–333CrossRef Nixon RM, Wonderling D, Grieve RD (2010) Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared. Health Econ 19(3):316–333CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, Bogoni S, D’Ambra M, Ingaldi C et al (2015) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in benign or premalignant pancreatic lesions: is it really more cost-effective than open approach? J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 19(8):1415–1424CrossRef Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, Bogoni S, D’Ambra M, Ingaldi C et al (2015) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in benign or premalignant pancreatic lesions: is it really more cost-effective than open approach? J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 19(8):1415–1424CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Souche R, Herrero A, Bourel G, Chauvat J, Pirlet I, Guillon F et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 32(8):3562–3569CrossRef Souche R, Herrero A, Bourel G, Chauvat J, Pirlet I, Guillon F et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 32(8):3562–3569CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E, Fabra I, Caruso R, Malavé L et al (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis. Int J Surg Lond Engl 48:300–304CrossRef Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E, Fabra I, Caruso R, Malavé L et al (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis. Int J Surg Lond Engl 48:300–304CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study
Authors
Matteo De Pastena
Alessandro Esposito
Salvatore Paiella
Niccolò Surci
Greta Montagnini
Giovanni Marchegiani
Giuseppe Malleo
Erica Secchettin
Luca Casetti
Claudio Ricci
Luca Landoni
Chiara Bovo
Claudio Bassi
Roberto Salvia
Publication date
01-03-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Keyword
Pancreatectomy
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07528-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Surgical Endoscopy 3/2021 Go to the issue