
Abstract Background Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost-effectiveness and impact on disease-specific quality of life have yet to be established. Methods The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease-specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality-adjusted life-year. Results All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot-assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €–427 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval €–4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost-effective than the open approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality-adjusted life-year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75–10) versus 7 (4–8·75); P = 0·056) and disease-specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy. Conclusion Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost-effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality-adjusted life-years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery.
Adult, Male, SURGERY, Pancreatectomy/economics, Cost-Benefit Analysis, INTERNATIONAL STUDY-GROUP, 610, Radboud University Medical Center, EMC MM-04-47-07, COSMESIS, OPEN ILEOCOLIC RESECTION, BODY-IMAGE, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Pancreatectomy, Postoperative Complications, Robotic Surgical Procedures, Hospital Costs/statistics & numerical data, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 617, Journal Article, Humans, Single-Blind Method, Comparative Study, Hospital Costs, Laparoscopy/economics, Aged, Netherlands, Aged, 80 and over, Original Articles, Recovery of Function, Middle Aged, Radboudumc 14: Tumours of the digestive tract RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Postoperative Complications/economics, Multicenter Study, DEFINITION, Patient Satisfaction, Randomized Controlled Trial, Robotic Surgical Procedures/economics, Quality of Life, Surgery, Female, Laparoscopy, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Surgery - Radboud University Medical Center, Follow-Up Studies
Adult, Male, SURGERY, Pancreatectomy/economics, Cost-Benefit Analysis, INTERNATIONAL STUDY-GROUP, 610, Radboud University Medical Center, EMC MM-04-47-07, COSMESIS, OPEN ILEOCOLIC RESECTION, BODY-IMAGE, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Pancreatectomy, Postoperative Complications, Robotic Surgical Procedures, Hospital Costs/statistics & numerical data, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 617, Journal Article, Humans, Single-Blind Method, Comparative Study, Hospital Costs, Laparoscopy/economics, Aged, Netherlands, Aged, 80 and over, Original Articles, Recovery of Function, Middle Aged, Radboudumc 14: Tumours of the digestive tract RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Postoperative Complications/economics, Multicenter Study, DEFINITION, Patient Satisfaction, Randomized Controlled Trial, Robotic Surgical Procedures/economics, Quality of Life, Surgery, Female, Laparoscopy, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Surgery - Radboud University Medical Center, Follow-Up Studies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 49 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
