Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

被引:1
|
作者
Koh, Ye Xin [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Zhao, Yun [5 ]
Tan, Ivan En-Howe [2 ,5 ]
Tan, Hwee Leong [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chua, Darren Weiquan [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Loh, Wei-Liang [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Tan, Ek Khoon [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Teo, Jin Yao [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Au, Marianne Kit Har [5 ,6 ,7 ]
Goh, Brian Kim Poh [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Hepatopancreatobiliary & Transplant Surg, Academia, 20 Coll Rd, Singapore 169856, Singapore
[2] Academia, Natl Canc Ctr Singapore, 20 Coll Rd, Singapore 169856, Singapore
[3] Duke Natl Univ Singapore, Med Sch, Singapore, Singapore
[4] SingHealth Duke Natl Univ Singapore, Liver Transplant Serv, Transplant Ctr, Singapore, Singapore
[5] Singapore Hlth Serv, Grp Finance Analyt, Singapore 168582, Singapore
[6] Singhlth Community Hosp, Finance, Singapore 168582, Singapore
[7] Singapore Hlth Serv, Finance Reg Hlth Syst & Strateg Finance, Singapore 168582, Singapore
关键词
Distal pancreatectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Robotic; Laparoscopic; Cost-effectiveness; Network meta-analysis; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL-OUTCOMES; SINGLE-CENTER; RESECTION; EXPERIENCE; FISTULA; SURGERY; BIAS;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-024-10889-6
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundThis study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).MethodsStudies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.ResultsTwenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.ConclusionLDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.
引用
收藏
页码:3035 / 3051
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: A meta-analysis
    Xie, Kun
    Zhu, Yi-Ping
    Xu, Xiad-Wu
    Chen, Ke
    Yan, Jia-Fei
    Mou, Yi-Ping
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2012, 18 (16) : 1959 - 1967
  • [43] Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic diseases
    Qiu, Jianguo
    Chen, Shuting
    Prasoon, Pankaj
    Wu, Hong
    [J]. SURGICAL PRACTICE, 2013, 17 (02) : 49 - 57
  • [44] Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy
    Nakamura, Masafumi
    Nakashima, Hiroshi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES, 2013, 20 (04) : 421 - 428
  • [45] Robotic versus Open Radical Cystectomy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Xia, Leilei
    Wang, Xianjin
    Xu, Tianyuan
    Zhang, Xiaohua
    Zhu, Zhaowei
    Qin, Liang
    Zhang, Xiang
    Fang, Chen
    Zhang, Minguang
    Zhong, Shan
    Shen, Zhoujun
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (03):
  • [46] Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
    Lyu, Yunxiao
    Cheng, Yunxiao
    Wang, Bin
    Zhao, SiCong
    Chen, Liang
    [J]. SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY ENDOSCOPY & PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES, 2021, 31 (01): : 104 - 112
  • [47] Oncological outcomes in minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Wong, Nicky Zhun Hong
    Yap, Dominic Wei Ting
    Ng, Sherryl Lei
    Ng, Junie Yu Ning
    James, Juanita Jaslin
    Kow, Alfred Wei Chieh
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2024, 11
  • [48] Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Is Associated With Significantly Less Overall Morbidity Compared to the Open Technique A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Venkat, Raghunandan
    Edil, Barish H.
    Schulick, Richard D.
    Lidor, Anne O.
    Makary, Martin A.
    Wolfgang, Christopher L.
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2012, 255 (06) : 1048 - 1059
  • [49] Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case-Matched Studies Comparing Open and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Is It a Safe Procedure?
    Pericleous, Stephanos
    Middleton, Nicos
    McKay, Siobhan Chloe
    Bowers, Kaye Amelia
    Hutchins, Robert Rayner
    [J]. PANCREAS, 2012, 41 (07) : 993 - 1000
  • [50] An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for managing pelvic organ prolapse
    Chang, Chia-Lun
    Chen, Chun-Hua
    Shei-Dei Yang, Stephen
    Chang, Shang-Jen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2022, 16 (05) : 1037 - 1045