Dataset Information

State-Level Examination of Clinical Outcomes and Costs for Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach to Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Published studies evaluating the effect of robotic assistance on clinical outcomes and costs of care in diaphragmatic hernia repair (DHR) have been limited.

Study design

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for Florida were queried to identify patients undergoing transabdominal DHR between 2011 and 2018 and associated inpatient and outpatient encounters within 12 months after the index operation. Patients undergoing robotic DHR were 1:1:1 propensity score-matched for age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidity score, case priority, payer, and facility volume with patients undergoing open and laparoscopic DHR.

Results

There were 5,962 patients (67.3%) who underwent laparoscopic DHR, 1,520 (17.2%) who underwent open DHR, and 1,376 (15.5%) who underwent robotic DHR. On comparison of matched cohorts, median index length of stay (3 days; interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 5 days vs 2 days; IQR 1 to 4 days; p < 0.001) and index hospitalization costs ($17,236; IQR $13,231 to $22,183 vs $12,087; IQR $8,881 to $17,439; p < 0.001) for robotic DHR were greater than for laparoscopic DHR. Median length of stay for open DHR (6 days; IQR 4 to 10 days) was longer than that for both laparoscopic and robotic DHR. Median index hospitalization costs for open DHR ($16,470; IQR $11,152 to $23,768) were greater than those for laparoscopic DHR, but less than those for robotic DHR. There were no significant differences between cohorts in the overall rate of post-index care.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic DHR is the most cost-effective approach to DHR. Robotic assistance provides clinical outcomes comparable with laparoscopic DHR, but is associated with increased index cost.

SUBMITTER: Kulshrestha S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8238911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether robotic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer days in the hospital 90 days after surgery compared with laparoscopic repair.DesignPragmatic, blinded randomized controlled trial.SettingMultidisciplinary hernia clinics in Houston, USA.Participants124 patients, deemed appropriate candidates for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair, consecutively presenting from April 2018 to February 2019.InterventionsRobotic ventral hernia repair (n=65) versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (n=59).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was number of days in hospital within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, operating room time, wound complications, hernia recurrence, reoperation, abdominal wall quality of life, and costs from the healthcare system perspective. Outcomes were pre-specified before data collection began and analyzed as intention to treat.ResultsPatients from both groups were similar at baseline. Ninety day follow-up was completed in 123 (99%) patients. No evidence was seen of a difference in days in hospital between the two groups (median 0 v 0 days; relative rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 2.19; P=0.82). For secondary outcomes, no differences were noted in emergency department visits, wound complications, hernia recurrence, or reoperation. However, robotic repair had longer operative duration (141 v 77 min; mean difference 62.89, 45.75 to 80.01; P≤0.001) and increased healthcare costs ($15 865 (£12 746; €14 125) v $12 955; cost ratio 1.21, 1.07 to 1.38; adjusted absolute cost difference $2767, $910 to $4626; P=0.004). Among patients with robotic ventral hernia repair, two had an enterotomy compared none with laparoscopic repair. The median one month postoperative improvement in abdominal wall quality of life was 3 with robotic ventral hernia repair compared with 15 following laparoscopic repair.ConclusionThis study found no evidence of a difference in 90 day postoperative hospital days between robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. However, robotic repair increased operative duration and healthcare costs.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03490266.

Project description:ImportanceDespite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.ObjectiveTo determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical pilot study was conducted from April 2016 to April 2019, with a follow-up duration of 30 days in 6 academic and academic-affiliated sites. Enrolled in this study were 113 patients with a unilateral primary or recurrent inguinal hernia. After exclusions 102 remained for analysis.InterventionsStandard laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes included postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, mobility, wound morbidity, and cosmesis. Secondary outcomes included cost, surgeon ergonomics, and surgeon mental workload. A primary outcome was not selected because this study was designed as a pilot study. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection.ResultsA total of 102 patients were included in the study (54 in the laparoscopic group, mean [SD] age, 57.2 [13.3] years and 48 [88.9%] male; 48 in the robotic group, mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.1] years and 44 [91.6%] male). There were no differences at the preoperative, 1-week, or 30-day points between the groups in terms of wound events, readmissions, pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale, or quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair was associated with longer median (interquartile range) operative times (75.5 [59.0-93.8] minutes vs 40.5 [29.2-63.8] minutes, respectively; P?<?.001), higher median (interquartile range) cost ($3258 [$2568-$4118] vs $1421 [$1196-$1930], respectively; P?<?.001), and higher mean (SD) frustration levels on the NASA Task Load Index Scale (range, 1-100, with lower scores indicating lower cognitive workload) (32.7 [23.5] vs 20.1 [19.2], respectively; P?=?.004). There were no differences in ergonomics of the surgeons between the groups as measured by the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment instrument.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study showed no clinical benefit to the robotic approach to straightforward inguinal hernia repair compared with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic approach incurred higher costs and more operative time compared with the laparoscopic approach, with added surgeon frustration and no ergonomic benefit to surgeons.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816658.