Letting the Numbers Speak for Themselves: A Simple Approach to Cost Reduction for Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Instrument choices are influenced primarily by a surgeon's training and individual preference. Cost is often of secondary interest, particularly in the absence of any contracted fiscal obligation to the hospital. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how a simple intervention involving dissemination of cost data among a surgeon peer group influenced behavior with respect to surgical instrument choice. Cost data for laparoscopic appendectomies between July-December 2016 were disseminated to surgeons belonging to the same department of a teaching hospital. Each surgeon was provided his or her own cost data along with blinded data for his or her peers for comparison. Cost for each disposable instrument used among the group was provided for reference. Costs of laparoscopic appendectomy performed after the intervention (June-December 2017) were compared with costs before the intervention, for both individual surgeons and the group as a whole. A random effects linear regression model clustered on surgeon was then used to assess the average cost saving of the intervention while accounting for the intracorrelation of surgeon costs. One outlier was removed from the analysis, resulting in a cohort of 89 cases before the intervention and 74 postintervention. After outlier removal, data were normally distributed. The mean cost per case decreased for 10 of the 11 surgeons analyzed (minimum decrease of $7 to maximum decrease of $725). The remaining surgeon increased from an average of $985 ± 235 pre-intervention to $1003 ± 227 postintervention. The average cost saving for the group was $238 ± 226 and was associated with an average reduction in cost of 21 per cent. A linear regression analysis clustered on surgeon suggested the intervention was associated with an average saving of $260 (β = -260, SE = 39, P < 0.001). After dissemination of cost data among surgeon peers, a reduction in costs was observed. Most notably, significant savings occurred in the absence of any mandate or incentive to reduce costs. Providing cost data to surgeons to facilitate natural competition among peers is a simple and effective tool for reducing operating room costs.

Three-dimensional vs 2-dimensional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and 2-dimensional (2D) LG are commonly used for gastric cancer (GC). To investigate their safety and efficacy, we performed this meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The total number of lymph node dissections (LNDs), operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and hospitalization cost were extracted as major endpoints.

RESULTS

Among 904 articles that were enrolled, 9 studies were included for analysis. The 3D group was observed to have shorter operation times [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.54 to -0.06; P = .01] and less blood loss (95% CI: -0.41 to -0.19; P < .00001) than the 2D group. Compared with the 2D group, slightly higher hospitalization cost was found in the 3D group (95% CI: 0.06-0.37; P = .008). However, the outcomes among the total LNDs, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications were similar. Subgroup analysis suggested that the 3D LG group had more 11p (2.22 ± 1.80 vs 1.47 ± 1.99, P = .019) and 8a (2.52 ± 1.88 vs 1.48 ± 1.43, P = .001) LNDs compared to the 2D LG group.

CONCLUSIONS

3D LG has advantages for GC, with shorter operation times, less blood loss, and possibly more LNDs. However, the cost was slightly higher than that of 2D LG.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10386621.

Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies that compare the cost and outcome of robotic-assisted surgery to open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer treatment. We aimed to compare the three surgical modalities for colon cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study using the population-based Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for enrollment. We compared in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost for patients undergoing one of these three procedures using a multivariate adjusted logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 531,536 patients undergoing surgical treatment for colon cancer during the study period, 348,645 (65.6%) patients underwent open surgeries, 174,748 (32.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, and 8143 (1.5%) underwent robotic surgeries. In-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, wound complications, general medical complications, general surgical complications, and costs of the three surgical treatment modalities. Compared to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery, patients undergoing open surgery had a higher mortality rate (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.61-3.40), more general medical complications (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.67-1.87), a longer length of hospital stay (6.60 vs. 4.36 days), and higher total cost ($18,541 vs. $14,487) in the propensity score matched cohort. Mortality rate and general medical complications were equivalent in the laparoscopic and robotic surgery groups, but the median cost was lower in the laparoscopic group ($14641 vs. $16,628 USD).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery was associated with a favourable short-term outcome and lower cost compared with open surgery. Robot-assisted surgery had comparable outcomes but higher cost as compared to laparoscopic surgery.

A National study on the adoption of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the elderly population: current state and value proposition

BACKGROUND

The economic and clinical benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery are proven, yet may be underutilized in appropriate cases, especially in the elderly. Since the elderly constitute the greatest colorectal surgical volume, our goal was to identify trends in utilization and impact of laparoscopy in this cohort.

METHODS

A national review of elective inpatient colorectal resections from the Premier Inpatient Database between 2010 and 2015 was performed. Patients were included if elderly (≥ 65 years), then grouped into open or laparoscopic procedures. The main outcome measures were trends in utilization by approach and total costs for the episode of care, length of stay (LOS), readmission, and complications by approach in the elderly. Multivariable regression models controlled for differences across platforms, adjusting for patient demographic, comorbidities and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

In 70,655 elderly patients evaluated, laparoscopic adoption remained lower than open throughout the study period. Rates increased until 2013, then declined, with increasing rates of open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower mean total costs ($4012 less/case), complications and readmissions (36% and 33% less, respectively), and shorter LOS (2.6 less days) than open cases (all p < 0.0001). When complications occurred, they were less severe and the readmission episodes were less costly with laparoscopy than open colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of laparoscopy in the elderly has lagged behind open surgery and even declined in recent years despite being associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost. With this tremendous value proposition to increase use of laparoscopic surgery in the elderly, further work needs to evaluate root causes of the disparity.

Management and Outcomes of Acute Appendicitis in the Presence of Cirrhosis: A Nationwide Analysis

Best management for acute appendicitis (AA) in adults with liver cirrhosis is controversial and needs more investigation. We aimed to examine the impact of different treatment modalities on outcomes in this complex patient population. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2012 to 2014 was queried to identify AA patients with no cirrhosis, compensated cirrhosis (CC), and decompensated cirrhosis (DC). Each cohort was further stratified according to the treatment type: nonoperative management, open appendectomy, and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Chi-square, ANOVA, and binary regression analyses were used to determine differences between groups and risk factors for mortality and complications, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. A total of 108,289 AA patients were analyzed; of those, 304 with CC and 134 with DC were identified. Compared with CC and no cirrhosis, DC patients had significantly higher mortality, higher cost, and longer hospital length of stay. LA is accompanied by higher survival, lower cost, shorter duration of hospitalization, and lower incidence of complications across all groups. We conclude that LA is the best management strategy for AA in cirrhotic patients. Even in decompensated cirrhotics, which are associated with worse clinical outcomes, LA is still a favorable option over open appendectomy and nonoperative management.

The laparoscopic approach to pancreatoduodenectomy is cost neutral in very high-volume centers

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the impact of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2016.

RESULTS

In this database, 488 (10%) patients underwent elective laparoscopic; 4,544 (90%) underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy. On adjusted analysis, the risk of perioperative morbidity and overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic were identical to those for patients undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic in low (+$10,399, 95% confidence interval [$3,700, $17,098]) and moderate to high (+$4,505, 95% confidence interval [$528, $8,481]) volume centers had greater costs than those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy in the same centers. In very high-volume centers (>127 pancreatoduodenectomies/year), aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic were essentially identical to those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy in the same centers (+$815, 95% confidence interval [-$1,530, $3,160]).

CONCLUSION

Rates of morbidity and overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic are not different than those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy. At low to moderate and high-volume centers, elective laparoscopic is associated with greater aggregate costs of care relative to open pancreatoduodenectomy. At very high-volume centers, elective laparoscopic is cost-neutral.

Comparison of surgical payer costs and implication on the healthcare expenses between laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) in a large healthcare system

Introduction

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a promising antireflux surgical treatment. The cost associated with the device may be perceived as a drawback by payers, which may limit the adoption of this technique. There are limited data regarding the cost of MSA in the management of reflux disease. The aims of the study were to report the clinical outcome and quality of life measures in patients after MSA and to compare the pharmaceutical and procedure payer costs and the disease-related and overall expense of MSA compared to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) from a payer perspective.

Methods and procedures

This prospective observational study was performed in conjunction with the region’s largest health insurance company. Data were collected on patients who underwent MSA over a 2-year period beginning in September 2015 at the study network hospitals. The LNF comparison group was procured from members’ claims data of the payer. Inclusion was predicated by patients having continuous coverage during study period. The total procedural reimbursement and the disease-related and overall medical claims submitted up to 12 months prior to surgery and up to 12 months following surgery were obtained. The payer reimbursement data are presented as allowed cost per member per month (PMPM). These values were then compared between groups.

Results

There were 195 patients who underwent MSA and 1131 that had LNF. MSA results in comparable symptom control, PPI elimination rate, and quality of life measures compared to values reported for LNF in the literature. The median (IQR) reimbursement of surgery was $13,522 (13,195–14,439) for those who underwent MSA and $13,388 (9951–16,261) for patients with LNF, p = 0.02. In patients who underwent MSA, the median reimbursement related to the upper gastrointestinal disease was $ 305 PMPM, at 12 months prior to surgery and $ 104 at 12 months after surgery, representing 66% decrease in cost. These values were $ 233 PMPM and $126 PMPM for patients who underwent LNF, representing a 46% decrease (p = 0.0001). At 12 months following surgery, the reimbursement for overall medical expenses had decreased by 10.7% in the MSA group and 1.4% in the LNF group when compared to the preoperative baseline reimbursement. The reimbursement for PPI use after surgery showed a 95% decrease in the MSA group and 90% among LNF group when compared to the preoperative baseline (p = 0.10).

Conclusion

When compared with LNF, MSA results in a reduction of disease-related expenses for the payer in the year following surgery. While MSA is associated with a higher procedural payer cost compared to LNF, payer costs may offset due to reduction in the expenses after surgery.

Validation and Extension of the Ventral Hernia Repair Cost Prediction Model

BACKGROUND

Repair of ventral and incisional hernias remains a costly challenge for health care systems. In a previous study of a single surgeon's elective open ventral hernia repair (VHR) practice, a cost model was developed, which predicted over 70% of hospital cost variation. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the ventral hernia cost model with multiple surgeons' elective open VHR cases and extending to include nonelective and laparoscopic VHR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With the University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board approval, elective and emergent cases of open and laparoscopic VHR performed by multiple surgeons over 3 y were identified. Perioperative variables were obtained from the local American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program database and electronic medical record review. Hospital cost data were obtained from the hospital cost accounting system. Forward multivariable regression of log-transformed costs identified independent cost drivers (P for entry < 0.05, and P for exit > 0.10).

RESULTS

Of the 387 VHRs, 74% were open repairs; mean age was 55 y, and 52% of patients were female. For open, elective cases (n = 211; mean cost of $19,145), the previously reported six-factor cost model predicted 45% of the total cost variation. With all VHRs included, additional variables were found to independently drive costs, predicting 59% of the total cost variation from the base cost. The biggest cost drivers were inpatient status (+$1013), use of biologic mesh (+$1131), preoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome/sepsis (+$894), and preoperative open wound (+$786).

CONCLUSIONS

Ventral hernia repair cost variability is predictable. Understanding the independent drivers of cost may be helpful in controlling costs and in negotiating appropriate reimbursement with payers.

Morbidity after surgical management of cervical cancer in low and middle income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate morbidity for patients after the primary surgical management of cervical cancer in low and middle-income countries (LMIC).

METHODS

The Pubmed, Cochrane, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, LILACS and CINAHL were searched for published studies from 1st Jan 2000 to 30th June 2017 reporting outcomes of surgical management of cervical cancer in LMIC. Random-effects meta-analytical models were used to calculate pooled estimates of surgical complications including blood transfusions, ureteric, bladder, bowel, vascular and nerve injury, fistulae and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included five-year progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

FINDINGS

Data were available for 46 studies, including 10,847 patients from 11 middle income countries. Pooled estimates were: blood transfusion 29% (95%CI 0.19-0.41, P = 0.00, I2 = 97.81), nerve injury 1% (95%CI 0.00-0.03, I2 77.80, P = 0.00), bowel injury, 0.5% (95%CI 0.01-0.01, I2 = 0.00, P = 0.77), bladder injury 1% (95%CI 0.01-0.02, P = 0.10, I2 = 32.2), ureteric injury 1% (95%CI 0.01-0.01, I2 0.00, P = 0.64), vascular injury 2% (95% CI 0.01-0.03, I2 60.22, P = 0.00), fistula 2% (95%CI 0.01-0.03, I2 = 77.32, P = 0.00,), pulmonary embolism 0.4% (95%CI 0.00-0.01, I2 26.69, P = 0.25), and infection 8% (95%CI 0.04-0.12, I2 95.72, P = 0.00). 5-year PFS was 83% for laparotomy, 84% for laparoscopy and OS was 85% for laparotomy cases and 80% for laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical morbidity in cervical cancer in LMIC, which highlights the limitations of the current data and provides a benchmark for future health services research and policy implementation.

The laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy is a value-added proposition for patients undergoing care in moderate-volume and high-volume centers

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the impact of the minimally invasive approach to distal pancreatectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy between 2012 and 2014. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate postoperative outcomes including readmissions to 90 days after distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 267 (11%) patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and a total of 2,214 (89%) underwent open distal pancreatectomy. On multivariable regression, patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a decreased odds risk of having any severe adverse outcome (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [0.54-0.97]), prolonged length of stay (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval [0.30-0.79]), and of being in the highest quartile for aggregate costs of care (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval [0.32-0.66]) relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a lower average 90-day aggregate cost of care than those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy when procedures were performed in high-volume (-$16,153, 95% CI: [-$23,342 to -$8,964]) centers.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy have a lower risk of severe adverse outcomes, prolonged overall length of stay, and lower associated costs of care relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. This association is independent of hospital volume.

Open and Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Surgery: A Cost Analysis

Background: In the treatment of inguinal hernias, there is little hard evidence concerning the economic reimbursement in the diagnosis-related group (DRG) era. Factors that affect whether a hospital may earn or lose financially depending on open or laparoscopic approach is still underexplored. The aim of this study was to provide a reliable analysis of in-hospital costs and reimbursements in inguinal hernia surgery. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed the 1-year experience in inguinal hernia repair in patients undergoing open Lichtenstein (OL), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal unilateral (UTEP), or bilateral (BTEP) hernia repair. Demographics, results, costs, and DRG-based reimbursements were recorded and analyzed. Results: During the study period, 39 patients underwent OL, 82 patients UTEP, and 16 patients BTEP. The average total cost amounted to 4126 EUR in OL, 5134 EUR in UTEP, and 7082 EUR in BTEP groups (P < .001). The hospital reimbursement amounted to 5486 EUR, 5252 EUR, and 6555 EUR in the OL, UTEP, and BTEP groups, respectively (P < .001). Finally, the mean hospital earnings were 1360 EUR, 118 EUR, and -527 EUR for each patient in OL, UTEP, and BTEP, respectively (P < .001). Conclusions: In-hospital costs were higher in UTEP and BTEP as compared with OL. The DRG-based reimbursement provided adequate compensation for patients with unilateral inguinal hernia, whereas hospital earnings were profitable in OL group only, and led an overall financial loss in the BTEP group. Surgeons should be conscious that clinical advantages of the laparoscopic approach are not adequately compensated for, from an economic point of view.

Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Costs Associated with Laparoscopic Appendectomy in a Middle-Income Country with Universal Health Coverage

BACKGROUND

Although many studies have compared outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA), some clinical and economic outcomes continue to be controversial, particularly in low-medium-income countries. We aimed at determining clinical and economic outcomes associated with LA versus OA in adult patients in Colombia.

METHODS

Retrospective, cohort study based on administrative healthcare records included all patients who underwent LA or OA in Colombia's contributory regime between July 1, 2013, and September 30, 2015. Outcomes were 30-day mortality rates, ICU admissions rates, length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs provided until discharge. Propensity score matching techniques were used to balance the baseline characteristics of patients (age, sex, comorbidities based on the Charlson index, insurer, and geographic location) and to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) of LA as compared to OA over outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 65,625 subjects were included, 92.9% underwent OA and 7.1% LA. For the entire population, 30-day mortality was 0.74 per 100 appendectomies (95% CI 0.67-0.81), the mean and median LOS were 3.83 days and 1 day, respectively, and the ICU admissions rate during the first 30 days was 7.92% (95% CI 7.71-8.12). The ATE shows an absolute difference in the mortality rate after 30 days of -0.35 per 100 appendectomies (p = 0.023), in favor of LA. No effects on ICU admissions or LOS were identified. LA was found to increase costs by 514.13 USD on average, with total costs of 772.78 USD for OA and 1286.91 USD for LA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia's contributory regime, LA is associated with lower 30-day mortality rate and higher hospital costs as compared to OA. No differences are found in ICU admissions or LOS.

Value-based assessment of hysterectomy approaches

AIM

By evaluating operative outcomes relative to cost, we compared the value of minimally invasive hysterectomy approaches, including a technique discussed less often in the literature, laparoscopic retroperitoneal hysterectomy (LRH), which incorporates retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their vascular origin.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all women (N = 2689) aged greater than or equal to 18 years who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions from 2011 to 2013 at a high-volume hospital in Maryland, USA. Procedures included: laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH), total laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH), and LRH.

RESULTS

Total vaginal hysterectomy had the highest intraoperative complication rate (9.6%; P < 0.0001) but the lowest postoperative complication rate (1.8%; P < 0.0001). Robotics had the highest postoperative complication rate (11.4%; P < 0.0001). LRH had the shortest operative time (71.2 min; P < 0.0001) and the lowest intraoperative complication rates (2.1%; P < 0.0001). LRH and TVH were the least costly (averaging $4061 and $6416, respectively), while RALH was the most costly ($9354). Taking both operative outcomes and cost into account, LRH, TVH and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy yielded the highest value scores; total laparoscopic hysterectomy, RALH, and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy yielded the lowest.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the value of surgical interventions requires an evaluation of both operative outcomes and direct hospital costs. Using a quality-cost framework, the LRH approach as performed by high-volume laparoscopic specialists emerged as having the highest calculated value.

Robotic Surgery Is More Expensive with Similar Outcomes in Sleeve Gastrectomy: Analysis of the NIS Database

The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes after robotic-assisted and laparoscopic bariatric sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Sleeve gastrectomy is traditionally performed using laparoscopic techniques. Robotic-assisted surgery enables surgeons to perform minimally invasive SG, but with unknown benefits. Using a national database, we compared postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic SG and robotic-assisted SG. National data from individuals undergoing elective SG in the National Inpatient Sample database between 2011 and 2013 were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to match robotic and laparoscopic groups by demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. The matching cohorts were compared. A total of 26,195 patients who underwent elective SG for morbid obesity were included. Of these, 25,391 (96.9%) were completed via laparoscopy, whereas 804 (3.1%) were performed with robotic assistance. There were no significant differences in demographics and subsequent postoperative complications. The inhospital mortality was similar. Length of hospital stay was statistically different, with a mean of 1.88 in laparoscopic versus 2.08 days in robotic (P < 0.001). Higher total hospital charges were noted in the robotic-assisted SG group (median US$38,569 vs US$54,658, P < 0.001). These differences were evident even after adjusting for confounding factors: wound infection, atelectasis, bowel obstruction, pneumonia, and bowel obstruction (P < 0.001).

Combined endo-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) for benign colon polyps: a single institution cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic removal of benign colon polyps is not always possible, even with advanced endoscopic techniques. Segmental colectomy has been the traditional therapy but is associated with an increased risk of complications and may be unnecessary since fewer than 20% of these polyps harbor malignancy. Combined endo-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) has emerged as an alternative method to address these polyps. While feasibility, safety, and improved short-term patient outcomes have been demonstrated, there has never been an evaluation of cost comparing these two approaches within a single institution.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, we compared short-term outcomes and costs of 11 patients who underwent CELS for right colon polyps with 11 patients who underwent a laparoscopic right colectomy between April 2014 and November 2017. The cost analysis covered the perioperative period from operating room to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 11 patients underwent an attempted CELS procedure for right colon polyps with a success rate of 90% (10/11). The median length of stay (LOS) for CELS patients was 1 day. LOS for patients who underwent a laparoscopic right colectomy at TMC was 3.82 days. The median OR time for CELS was 166.73 (± 57.88) min, compared to 204.73 (± 51.49) min for a laparoscopic right colectomy. The calculated total cost for a CELS patient was $5523.29, compared to $12,626.33 for a laparoscopic right colectomy, for a cost-savings of $7103.04 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

CELS procedures are associated with good short-term outcomes and are performed at a lower cost compared to traditional laparoscopic colectomy, with the most significant cost saver being shorter hospital LOS. This is the first study to directly compare the cost of CELS to traditional laparoscopic colectomy in the surgical management of benign colon polyps within a single institution.

Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal technique versus open surgery with the ULTRAPRO Hernia System for the repair of female primary femoral hernias-an observational retrospective study

Femoral hernias (FHs), predominantly seen in females, require surgery for cure. To date, surgical repair of primary FHs in female patients with either open surgery or laparoscopic operation has been poorly documented. We retrospectively investigated the treatment of female primary FHs with open surgery using the ULTRAPRO Hernia System (UHS procedure) or the laparoscopic procedure, namely, the transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) technique. A total of 41 female patients with primary FHs who had undergone UHS or TAPP were included in this study. The procedural parameters, post-surgical complications, treatment expense, and follow-up results were analyzed. The vast majority of patients (39/41) underwent elective operations: 15 received UHS (including 2 emergency cases) and 26 had TAPP (P = .08). The UHS group had a greater average age, due to the fact that FHs occur often in people with advanced age who tend to have systemic disease, limiting the use of general anesthesia required for TAPP. Compared with UHS, TAPP took a significantly shorter time to complete and patients undergoing TAPP had a dramatically shorter hospital stay. While no recurrence was observed in both groups, post-procedure pain and foreign body sensation were reported by significantly more patients in UHS group. The cost was greater with TAPP. Taken together, we concluded that both UHS and TAPP are effective in the management of female FHs. In view of the advantages and disadvantages between the open and the laparoscopic operation, surgeons can select a procedure according to their skills and patients' situation.

Assessing outcomes and costs of appendectomies performed at rural hospitals

BACKGROUND

The purpose of our study was to assess the outcomes and costs of appendectomies performed at rural and urban hospitals.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample (2001-2012) was queried for appendectomies at urban and rural hospitals. Outcomes (disease severity, laparoscopy, complications, length of stay (LOS), and cost) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Rural patients were more likely to be older, male, white, and have Medicaid or no insurance. Rural hospitals were associated with higher negative appendectomy rates (OR = 1.26,95%CI = 1.18-1.34,p < 0.01), less laparoscopy use (OR = 0.65,95%CI = 0.58-0.72,p < 0.01), and slightly shorter LOS (OR = 0.98,95%CI = 0.97-0.99,p < 0.01). There was no consistent association with perforated appendicitis and no difference in complications or costs after adjusting for hospital volume. Yearly trends showed a significant increase in the cases utilizing laparoscopy each year at rural hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural appendectomies are associated with increased negative appendectomy rates and less laparoscopy use with no difference in complications or costs compared to urban hospitals.

Application of shaft method assisted biological mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

To compare the feasibility and advantage of traditional tiling method and shaft method to place biological mesh following laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia.Sixty cases from January 2013 to January 2014 treated with laparoscopic inguinal hernia neoplasty with biological patches were included. All the cases were randomly divided into control group and observation group. Observation group was treated with shaft method to place biological mesh, while control group was treated with traditional tiling method. The length of the operation, hospital fees, and rate of occurrence of surgical complications were compared.All 60 cases were successfully treated with laparoscope inguinal hernia repair. None were converted to open operations. Total operation times for the observation group and control group were 54 ± 4.5 and 71 ± 7.2 minutes, respectively (P < .05). The hospital fees of the observation group and control group were 21,280 ± 365 RenMinBi Yuan (RMB) and 24,280 ± 428 RMB, respectively (P < .05). The rates of occurrence of surgical complications were 3.33% (1/30) and 16.7% (5/30), respectively (P < .05).The shaft method can be applied in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with biological mesh. Compared with the traditional method, the shaft method has apparent advantages, fewer complications during and after the operation.

Affordable Laparoscopic Camera System (ALCS) Designed for Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques (MISTs) could have tremendous benefits in resource-poor environment. There is growing interest in MISTs in most low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), but its adoption has remained limited; this is largely due to high cost of the initial setup, lack of technological backup and limited access to training among others. An affordable laparoscopic setup will go a long way in improving access to MISTs.

METHODS

A common zero degrees 10 mm scope is attached on the camera of a low-price smartphone. Two elastic bands are used to fix the scope right in front of the smartphone's main camera; alternatively, a low-cost camera coupler can be used. The device is covered with sterile transparent drapes and a light source connected with a fiber-optic cable for endoscopic use. The image can be seen in real time on a common TV screen through an HDMI connection to the smartphone, with a sterile drape.

RESULTS

We were able to perform the five tasks of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery curriculum, using our vision system with proficiency. In a pig model, we performed a tubal ligation to simulate an appendectomy and we were able to suture. No major differences were measured between the two connection systems.

CONCLUSIONS

A low-cost laparoscopic camera system can benefit surgeons and trainees in LMICs. The system is already attractive for use during training, but further studies are needed to evaluate its potential clinical role in LMICs.

Laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with shorter length of stay without increased direct cost

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ileostomy closure with intracorporeal anastomosis offers potential advantages over open reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis, including earlier return of bowel function and reduced postoperative pain. In this study, we aim to compare the outcome and cost of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (utilizing either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis) with open ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

A retrospective review of sequential patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy reversal between 2013 and 2016 at a single, high-volume institution was performed. Patients were stratified on the basis of operative approach: open reversal, laparoscopic-assisted reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis (LE), and laparoscopic reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis (LI). Linear and logistic regressions were utilized to perform multivariate analysis and determine risk-adjusted outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 132 sequential cases of loop ileostomy reversal, 50 (38%) underwent open, 49 (37%) underwent LE, and 33 (22%) underwent LI. Demographic data and preoperative comorbidities were similar between the three cohorts. Median length of stay was significantly shorter for LI (52.1 h, p < 0.05) compared to open (69.0 h) and LE (69.6 h). After risk-adjusted analysis, length of stay was significant shorter in LI compared to LE (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93, p < 0.01) and open reversal (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, p < 0.01). Risk-adjusted 30-day morbidity rates were similar for LI compared to LE (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.081-2.33, p = 0.33) and open reversal (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.09-3.125, p = 0.48). Median in-hospital direct cost was similar for LI ($6575.00), LE ($6722.50), and open reversal ($6181.00).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of stay without increased overall direct cost. The technique of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal warrants continued study in a randomized clinical trial.

Introduction of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer into a Brazilian cancer service: a randomized trial evaluating perioperative clinical outcomes and costs

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and costs after the implementation of robotic surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer, compared to the traditional laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized study from 2015 to 2017, eighty-nine patients with endometrial carcinoma that was clinically restricted to the uterus were randomized in robotic surgery (44 cases) and traditional laparoscopic surgery (45 cases). We compared the number of retrieved lymph nodes, total time of surgery, time of each surgical step, blood loss, length of hospital stay, major and minor complications, conversion rates and costs.

RESULTS

The ages of the patients ranged from 47 to 69 years. The median body mass index was 31.1 (21.4-54.2) in the robotic surgery arm and 31.6 (22.9-58.6) in the traditional laparoscopic arm. The median tumor sizes were 4.0 (1.5-10.0) cm and 4.0 (0.0-9.0) cm in the robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgery groups, respectively. The median total numbers of lymph nodes retrieved were 19 (3-61) and 20 (4-34) in the robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgery arms, respectively. The median total duration of the whole procedure was 319.5 (170-520) minutes in the robotic surgery arm and 248 (85-465) minutes in the traditional laparoscopic arm. Eight major complications were registered in each group. The total cost was 41% higher for robotic surgery than for traditional laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer presented equivalent perioperative morbidity to that of traditional laparoscopic surgery. The duration and total cost of robotic surgery were higher than those of traditional laparoscopic surgery.

Application of modified primary closure of the pelvic floor in laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision for low rectal cancer

AIM

To introduce a novel, modified primary closure technique of laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision (LELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 76 patients with rectal cancer who underwent LELAPE from March 2013 to May 2016. Patients were classified into the modified primary closure group (32 patients) and the biological mesh closure group (44 patients). The total operating time, reconstruction time, postoperative stay duration, total cost, postoperative complications and tumor recurrence were compared.

RESULTS

All surgery was successfully performed. The pelvic reconstruction time was 14.6 ± 3.7 min for the modified primary closure group, which was significantly longer than that of the biological mesh closure group (7.2 ± 1.9 min, P < 0.001). The total operating time was not different between the two groups (236 ± 20 min vs 248 ± 43 min, P = 0.143). The postoperative hospital stay duration was 8.1 ± 1.9 d, and the total cost was 9297 ± 1260 USD for the modified primary closure group. Notably, both of these categories were significantly lower in this group than those of the biological mesh closure group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences observed between groups when comparing other perioperative data, long-term complications or oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The modified primary closure method for reconstruction of the pelvic floor in LELAPE for low rectal cancer is technically feasible, safe and cost-effective.

Cost Effectiveness of Different Methods of Appendiceal Stump Closure during Laparoscopic Appendectomy

There is no standard method for closure of an appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. This study compares stump closure using a stapler with closure using an Endoloop ligature. The charts of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at a single tertiary care center over a two-year period were reviewed for demographics, comobidities, operative details and costs, and outcomes. There were 325 patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy. The majority, 250 (77%), underwent stump closure with a stapler. They were equivalent in demographics and postoperative complication rates. Cases using an Endoloop were slightly faster in terms of procedure time and room time, and less expensive in terms of operative supply cost. The price difference is not explained by time saved in the operating room and more likely by the equipment price.