Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32240383›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

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

Matteo De Pastena, Alessandro Esposito, Salvatore Paiella, Niccolò Surci, Greta Montagnini, Giovanni Marchegiani, Giuseppe Malleo, Erica Secchettin, Luca Casetti, Claudio Ricci and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. RoboticFrontiers in oncology · 2021
    Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matteo De PastenaGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. m.depastena@gmail.com.
Alessandro EspositoGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Salvatore PaiellaGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Niccolò SurciGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Greta MontagniniGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Giovanni MarchegianiGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Giuseppe MalleoGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Erica SecchettinGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Luca CasettiGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Claudio RicciDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences-DIMEC, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Luca LandoniGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Chiara BovoHealthcare Department Administrator, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata (AOUI), Verona, Italy.
Claudio BassiGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Roberto SalviaGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Policlinico GB Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

methodAll 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionRDP 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.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisPropensity ScoreQuality of LifeAdultAgedFemaleHumansIntraoperative CareLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurveys and QuestionnairesCost analysisLaparoscopic pancreatectomyMinimally invasive pancreatectomyQuality of life analysisRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID32240383
OpenAlexW3014564787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.