Background: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Methods: Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. Results: The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 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 more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted. Conclusion: RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

Nationwide cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

De Pastena, Matteo;Esposito, Alessandro;Paiella, Salvatore;Salvia, Roberto
2024-01-01

Abstract

Background: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Methods: Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. Results: The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 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 more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted. Conclusion: RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.
2024
Cost analysis
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy
Minimally invasive pancreatectomy
Pancreatic surgery
Robotic distal pancreatectomy
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1133926
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact