Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BackgroundThe systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.MethodThe MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged & GE; 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.ResultsTwenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I-2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I-2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I-2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I-2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.ConclusionMinimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Automated summary

The systematic review evaluates the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. The study includes 22 studies and 152,651 patients, and finds that MIS has higher costs for surgical procedure, equipment, and operating room occupation, but lower overall index hospitalisation costs.