The Living Organ Donor Network: a model registry for living kidney donors

The South-Eastern Organ Procurement Foundation presents the first report on a programme to track donors through questionnaires completed at the time of donation, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly thereafter. Donors at participating centres were eligible for an insurance policy with a total benefit of 250,000 US dollars, covering accidental death related to donation, surgery, medical expenses of complications, and disability income. The four participating centres have registered 104 donors. Response rate to the questionnaires was 90.91%. The majority of the donors come from the immediate family (81.62%), either by blood or marriage. The majority of donors are employed full time, with income ranges similar to the national census. Donors rely on employer-provided vacation time and sick leave to recuperate, but the average donor required 12 days of unpaid leave before returning to work. Donors also experienced costs of transportation, lodging, and childcare. Anti-depressants were prescribed to 10.58% of donors, and 4.8% of donors reported they are treated for hypertension. Complications were reported by 37.5% of the donors, but only 7.6% of the complications were serious enough to require hospitalization or surgery. Donors reported higher complication rates than reported by the centres and experience financial burdens afterwards.

Laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: modifications for developing nations

OBJECTIVE

To describe modifications to laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy (LLDN) to make it more cost-effective for developing countries; LLDN was developed as a better alternative to conventional donor nephrectomy, with advantages of an earlier return to normal activities and smaller scars, but is not popular in developing countries because of high cost of disposable items.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2000 to January 2002, 148 LLDNs were performed, of which two used a hand-assisted technique, 17 the standard technique, 79 a modified laparoscopically assisted cost-saving approach and 50 by the modified technique. In the latter approach the kidney was delivered through a 6-8 cm anterior subcostal flank incision. In last 50 patients we further modified the technique, clipping the hilum using endoclips and delivering the kidney by holding the lateral pararenal fat through a 5 cm iliac fossa incision.

RESULTS

The mean age, operative duration, warm ischaemia time, blood loss, analgesic requirements, pain score and hospital stay were comparable among the various techniques used. Re-exploration was required in four patients (bleeding in two, trocar-induced bowel injury in two). Immediate complications after surgery occurred in 20% of patients. Using endoclips, the cost was considerably reduced, from $400 to $290. The iliac fossa incision was aesthetically pleasing and more acceptable to patients.

CONCLUSION

These modifications are relevant in the context of a developing nation, as they provide all the benefits of LLDN at reduced cost and with better cosmetic results.

Hand-assisted surgery improves outcomes for laparoscopic nephrectomy

Laparoscopy has become the preferred method for nephrectomy in many medical centers. We compared our experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN) and standard laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN). Data were prospectively collected on 119 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy between August 2000 and November 2002. Outcomes were compared for LN versus HALN using Wilcoxon rank sum test for quantitative outcomes and Fisher exact test and chi2 for qualitative outcomes. Thirty-nine patients underwent LN: 16 live donor, 16 radical, and 7 simple nephrectomies. Eighty patients were treated with HALN: 47 live donor, 32 radical, and 1 simple nephrectomy. There were no differences in mean age (49.2 years LN vs. 47.7 years HALN, P = 0.60) or weight (192.2 lb LN, 179.2 lb HALN, P = 0.12). Mean tumor size (4.77 cm LN vs. 7.12 cm HALN, P = 0.07) and length of extraction incision (8.37 cm LN vs. 7.87 cm HALN, P = 0.08) were similar. Total hospital charges (19,352 dollars vs. 18,505 dollars, P = 0.29) and length of stay (3.68 days vs. 3.72 days, P = 0.15) were equivalent for LN and HALN. Average operative time for HALN was significantly shorter (202 minutes vs. 258 minutes, P = 0.0001), and blood loss was less for HALN (71.7 cc vs. 113.1 cc, P = 0.007). Wound complications rates were similar (6.5% HALN vs. 13% LN, P = 0.34), but overall morbidity rates were higher after LN (28.2% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.001). Compared with pure laparoscopic nephrectomy, the hand-assisted approach reduces operative time and blood loss without increasing total hospital charges or length of stay. In our patients, HALN was also associated with fewer postoperative complications than standard laparoscopic nephrectomy. Hand-assisted laparoscopy may allow for the performance of increasingly complex procedures while maintaining the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in 210 consecutive patients: Outcomes, cost, and changes in practice patterns

BACKGROUND

Initially slow to gain widespread acceptance within the urological community, laparoscopic nephrectomy is now becoming the standard of care in many centers. Our institution has seen a dramatic transformation in practice patterns and patient outcomes in the 2 years following the introduction of laparoscopic nephrectomy. We compare the experience with laparoscopic and open nephrectomy within a single medical center.

METHODS

Data were collected for all patients undergoing elective nephrectomy (live donor, radical, simple, partial, and nephroureterectomy) between August 1998 and September 2002. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, and Fisher's exact test. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 92 underwent open nephrectomy, and 118 were treated laparoscopically (87 hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy, 31 totally laparoscopic). There was one conversion (0.8%). Patient demographics and indications for surgery were equivalent for both groups. Mean operative time for laparoscopic nephrectomy (230 min) was longer than for open (187 min, p = 0.0001). Blood loss (97 ml vs 216 ml, p = 0.0001), length of stay (3.9 days vs 5.9 days, p = 0.0001), perioperative morbidity (14% vs 31%, p = 0.01), and wound complications (6.8% vs 27.1%, p = 0.0001) were all significantly less for laparoscopic nephrectomy. For live donors, time to convalescence was less (12 days vs 33 days, p = 0.02), but hospital charges were more for patients treated laparoscopically (19,007 dollars vs 13,581 dollars, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less blood loss, fewer hospital days, fewer complications, and more rapid recovery than open surgery. We believe that these benefits outweigh the higher hospital charges associated with the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background

Living kidney donation represents an important source of organs for patients with end-stage renal failure. Over the past decade, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has replaced the conventional open procedure in many transplant centres. Using evidence-based methods, this study examines the current status of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Method

A Medline literature search (PubMed database, 1999–2002) and manual cross-referencing were performed to identify all articles relating to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Safety and efficacy criteria were analysed systematically for each study. Studies included were categorized using an evidence-based level grading system.

Results

Of 687 publications, 20 studies with level I–II evidence and 12 with level III evidence were analysed. Only one level I study could be identified. Level I and level II evidence suggests superiority of the laparoscopic approach in regard to postoperative analgesic consumption, hospital stay and return to work. Other safety and efficacy criteria, including donor and recipient outcomes, were similar between the two techniques.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has gained community acceptance by physicians and patients over the past decade. Despite a lack of strong evidence, such as large prospective randomized studies, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is likely to become the ‘gold standard’ for donor nephrectomy in the near future.

Cost comparison of hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: analysis of individual parameters

PURPOSE

Hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HAL) is an effective approach to nephrectomy that is less morbid than open nephrectomy (ON). In response to budgetary pressure at our large county hospital we reviewed the published experience and identified the cost components of HAL that could be targeted to decrease procedure cost.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of HAL and ON was performed and certain parameters were abstracted, including operative (OR) time, operative equipment and hospital stay (LOS). Using these data the projected overall cost and individual cost centers at our institution for HAL and ON were compared. Decision tree analysis models were devised to estimate the cost of each treatment using computer software. One and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of individual treatment variables on overall cost.

RESULTS

The literature showed 6 and 9 reports on 127 and 419 patients for ON and HAL, respectively. LOS was 5 and 3 days for ON and HAL, respectively. OR time was 169 and 204 minutes for ON and HAL, respectively. Based on a review of the costs at our institution ON was a less costly procedure by $205 ($6,882 vs $7,087 US dollars). The slight cost superiority of the open approach was due to significantly lower costs associated with operating room time and equipment. On the other hand, HAL demonstrated a cost advantage for LOS. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that HAL was less costly if HAL OR time was less than 184 minutes, LOS following HAL was less than 2.5 days or HAL OR supply costs were less than $718 US dollars. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that HAL was cost advantageous if performed in less than 3 hours and the patient was discharged home within 3 postoperative days.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary cost variables for nephrectomy include OR time, LOS stay and equipment cost. Using published data and decision tree analysis ON is slightly less costly by $205 US dollars than HAL at our institution. However, HAL can be more cost-effective than ON when OR time and LOS are low. Our model identifies several measures that can be used at any institution to render HAL economically superior to ON.

The Auckland experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

AIMS

To examine the initial experience of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) in New Zealand and compare it with open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

METHODS

All LDNs performed between June 2000 and June 2002 were reviewed. An equal number of ODNs were reviewed. Data were also collected on the recipients of the grafts. Key clinical data were prospectively collected; remaining data were collected by retrospectively reviewing patient charts. Auckland Hospital databases were accessed for costing analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty five cases of each procedure had been performed. There has been 100% LDN graft survival. There was no significant difference in graft function (serum creatinine) at one and 12 months (p = 0.25 and 0.35) between the two groups. There was no significant difference in donor morbidity (26% vs 31%, p = 0.59). LDN resulted in a shorter hospital stay (3 vs 6.5 days, p <0.0001) and convalescence period (3 vs 6 weeks, p <0.0001). LDN was significantly more expensive (13 357 dollars vs 6713 dollars, p <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

LDN in the New Zealand setting provides effective grafts for renal transplant recipients and is safe for the donor. Advantages for the donor are a shorter hospital stay and convalescence period. The major disadvantage of LDN is its higher cost compared with ODN.

The economic impact of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy on kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease accounts for $17.9 billion annually in direct medical costs in the United States. This study assessed the flow of expenditures from a Medicare perspective for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy compared with living and cadaveric transplantation and continued dialysis.

METHODS

This study involved a nonrandomized, retrospective investigation of patients with end-stage renal disease and charges using institutional and physician/supplier charges from the United States Renal Data System. The subjects were classified as laparoscopic living-donor transplant, living-donor transplant, cadaveric transplant, or dialysis patients. The first treatment date was set as the index date, and monthly charges were plotted from 12 months before and up to 48 months after the index date.

RESULTS

There were 230,769 dialysis patients and 44,063 transplant patients (181 laparoscopic living-donor, 11,466 living-donor, and 32,416 cadaveric). Monthly institutional charges were similar in the year preceding the index date, but they were higher for transplantation in the month after the index date and lower in subsequent periods. Two-year post-index cumulative charges were as follows: Monthly institutional charges were similar for the living-donor ($191,374) and laparoscopic living-donor ($192,053) transplant patients, followed by the cadaveric transplant ($229,449) and dialysis ($250,348) patients, whereas physician/supplier charges were highest for the laparoscopic living-donor transplant ($104,583) patients, followed by the dialysis ($73,730), cadaveric transplant ($70,369), and living-donor transplant ($65,897) patients. The break-even points for the living-donor, laparoscopic living-donor, and cadaveric transplant patients compared with the dialysis patients were 10, 14, and 18 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic procedure may be a beneficial alternative to the conventional open donor nephrectomy procedure and cadaveric transplantation, and it provides considerable benefits compared with dialysis.

The evolving role of partial nephrectomy in the management of renal cell carcinoma

The surgical management of renal cell carcinoma has undergone critical review over the past decade. Initially treated with radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma is now approached with nephron-sparing surgical techniques. Improved imaging modalities have substantially increased the number of incidental renal tumors detected, and with the increasing number of incidentally detected kidney tumors, a size and stage migration has occurred in renal cell carcinoma. Early studies showed that disease-free survival rates were similar between cancers treated with radical and partial nephrectomy. The standard now is to offer partial nephrectomy as a surgical option to all patients with renal lesions measuring 4.0 cm or smaller in the setting of a normal contralateral kidney. More recent issues regarding partial nephrectomy concern complication rates and management, renal cell carcinoma multifocality, margin status and distance to normal renal parenchyma, cost analysis, and the development of laparoscopic techniques that duplicate open partial nephrectomy. The purpose of this review is to outline and analyze these more recent concerns regarding partial nephrectomy.

Single-center comparison of purely laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and open radical nephrectomy in patients at high anesthetic risk

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The laparoscopic approach for management of high-risk patients with renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) may reduce perioperative and postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of purely laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN), hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN), and open radical nephrectomy (ORN) for renal tumors in a population of patients at high risk for perioperative complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for presumed RCC between August 1999 and August 2001 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and having an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of >/=3 were reviewed. Patients with known metastasis, local invasion, caval thrombi, or additional simultaneous surgical procedures were excluded from analysis. Thirteen patients underwent LRN, eight patients underwent HALRN, and 26 underwent ORN. The patient demographics were similar in the three groups. The groups were compared with regard to intraoperative and postoperative parameters. Statistical analysis was done using chi-square testing for categorical variables and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables. Differences in outcomes were examined using ANOVA and Dunnett's T for pairwise comparisons.

RESULTS

The ASA 4 patients had significantly longer hospital stays and total hospital costs than the ASA 3 patients. The mean operative time in the ASA 3 patients was similar in the three groups: 2.8 hours, 2.8 hours, and 2.5 hours for the LRN, HALRN, and ORN patients, respectively. Both the LRN patients (22.9 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent) and the HALRN patients (42.1 mg) required less pain medication than the open surgery patients (97.7 mg). When the total hospital costs were compared, LRN was less costly than HALRN ($6089 v $7678; P = 0.57) and open surgery ($6089 v $7694; P = 0.04). The complication rate in the LRN, HALRN, and ORN group was 0%, 25%, and 27%, respectively, although the differences were not statistically different (P = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Both LRN and HALRN can be performed safely in patients with significant comorbid conditions. Careful preoperative preparation, intraoperative monitoring, and awareness of laparoscopy-induced oliguria can preclude inadvertent overhydration, hemodilution, and congestive heart failure. Both LRN and HALRN result in less pain medication requirement and faster return to oral intake than ORN, and LRN results in fewer perioperative complications than HALRN or ORN in patients at high perioperative risk. The LRN technique has a 21% lower total cost than both HALRN and ORN.

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: financial disincentives by the Health Care Financing Administration

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is a minimally invasive alternative to open radical nephrectomy. We have noticed that since the beginning of 2001, when the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 50545 became available for laparoscopic nephrectomy, the reimbursement for the laparoscopic operation was significantly lowered. This led us to survey 25 laparoscopic urologic surgeons to assess trends in reimbursement from all over the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During this period, the records of reimbursements for radical nephrectomy were available from a single practice to compare that for the open and laparoscopic techniques. The 19 open and 10 laparoscopic operations were entered in a database for statistical analysis. Endourologists around the country also were polled on the subject.

RESULTS

The average reimbursement for an open radical nephrectomy was $1581 +/- 325 (SD), while the average reimbursement for a laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was $1192 +/- 184. Twenty-five polled endourologists had noted similar reductions in reimbursement for laparoscopic procedures. Many of those polled had participated in the Specialty Society Relative Value Unit (RVU) survey for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and stated that their recommendations were that the value be considered greater than that of the open counterpart.

CONCLUSION

The highly significant difference in reimbursement reflects a financial disincentive to surgeons performing laparoscopic procedures. It is obvious that in the U.S., the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) is devaluating all surgical procedures, and financial pressures of this type are disturbing.

Cost evaluation of basiliximab treatment for renal transplant patients in Japan

BACKGROUND

International phase III studies (CHIB 201 and 352) showed that basiliximab, a high affinity chimeric monoclonal antibody interleukin-2 receptor antagonist, is highly effective in preventing acute rejection when used as immunoprophylaxis in patients receiving cyclosporin (Neoral). We conducted a cost evaluation by applying international clinical results to standard Japanese medical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of basiliximab in renal transplant patients receiving conventional immunosuppressive therapy using cyclosporin and corticosteroids from the perspective of the healthcare payer in Japan.

STUDY DESIGN

A decision tree model was developed, comprising seven pathways with key clinical events identified after the transplantation. The average first-year treatment costs after transplantation for patients treated with and without basiliximab were calculated using the model. A sensitivity analysis was done to measure the degree of influence of several criteria including the incidences of rejection, and rejection responding to steroid pulse therapy and antibody therapy.

METHODS

Estimates of key clinical events were derived from the international studies. Calculation of direct medical costs were made from the payers' perspective, based on the Social Insurance Medical Fee Table in Japan. The cost of basiliximab was assumed as zero.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Basiliximab use produced an estimated saving of 315,807 yen (2000 values) during the first year after transplantation. Reduced acute rejection treatment and dialysis most influenced the cost saving. The sensitivity analysis showed that the average cost for a patient was lower in the basiliximab group and that the model was effective within the plausible range of each criterion that would reflect renal transplantation in Japan.

CONCLUSIONS

If the cost of basiliximab is less than 315,807 yen, the clinical and economic benefits of basiliximab in the first year after transplantation support the routine use of basiliximab in renal transplantation in Japan.

Laparoscopic nephrectomy is cost effective compared with open nephrectomy in a large county hospital

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the experience with laparoscopic nephrectomy in a large county hospital and perform a cost comparison between uncomplicated open and laparoscopic nephrectomy.

METHODS

Eleven consecutive patients who underwent an uncomplicated laparoscopic nephrectomy in a large county hospital were compared with 8 patients who underwent uncomplicated open nephrectomy during the same period. Patient charts and corresponding billing records were reviewed to determine overall hospitalization cost and individual cost components.

RESULTS

No perioperative complications occurred in either the laparoscopic or open group, and no statistically significant differences existed between groups with regard to patient demographics or operative parameters. The overall operating room costs favored the open nephrectomy group by dollars 1070 (P=0.003). However, the overall cost of hospitalization, surgeon professional fees, duration of hospitalization, room and board costs, laboratory, and radiology costs, pharmacy costs, intravenous solution and infusion pump costs all significantly favored the laparoscopic patient group. The mean difference in overall hospital cost between laparoscopic and open nephrectomy was dollars 1211 in favor of laparoscopy (P=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience with laparoscopic nephrectomy in a large county hospital demonstrates a clear economic advantage in favor of the laparoscopic approach. Given limited funding for public hospitals and a clear patient benefit, laparoscopic nephrectomy should constitute first-line therapy when nephrectomy is indicated.

Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

As compared with open donor nephrectomy (OpenDN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) offers donors more rapid recovery and recipients equivalent graft function, but LapDN costs remain greater. This study compared LapDN and OpenDN with cost-utility analysis.

METHODS

Utilities were assessed with time trade-off, probabilities derived from systematic review of the literature and the costs derived from 27 OpenDN and 34 LapDN patients treated contemporaneously. A societal perspective was taken. Lost employment costs were included. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with best- and worst-case scenarios for confidence intervals. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness.

RESULTS

LapDN costs are lower (11,170.71 dollars vs 12,631.91 dollars), whereas quality of life (QOL) is superior (0.7247 vs 0.6585 quality-adjusted life years [QALY], rendering LapDN a dominant strategy. The model was robust to all variables, and LapDN remained dominant from a payer perspective. In a worst-case scenario, the ICER for LapDN was at most 2,231.61 dollars per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

LapDN offers improved QOL at lower costs, despite the fact that this analysis included patients treated during the learning curve of LapDN at our institution. By potentially increasing organ donor rates, LapDN may be further cost saving by decreasing the number of patients receiving dialysis.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy

The benefits of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) are well described, while similar data on hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (HALDN) are lacking. We compare hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy with open donor nephrectomy. One hundred consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (10/98-8/01) donor/recipient pairs were compared to 50 open donor nephrectomy pairs (8/97-1/00). Mean donor weights were similar (179.6 +/- 40.8 vs. 167.4 +/- 30.3 lb; p = NS), while donor age was greater among hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (38.2 +/- 9.5 vs. 31.2 +/- 7.8 year; p < 0.01). Right nephrectomies was fewer in hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy [17/100 (17%) vs. 22/50 (44%); p < 0.05]. Operative time for hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (3.9 +/- 0.7 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.5 h; p < 0.01) was longer; however, return to diet (6.9 +/- 2.8 vs. 25.6 +/- 6.1 h; p < 0.01), narcotics requirement (17.9 +/- 6.3 vs. 56.3 +/- 6.4h; p < 0.01) and length of stay (51.7 +/- 22.2 vs. 129.6 +/- 65.7 h; p < 0.01) were less than open donor nephrectomy. Costs were similar ($11072 vs. 10840). Graft function and 1-week Cr of 1.4 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.6 +/- 1.1 g/dL (p = NS) were similar. With the introduction of HALDN, our laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy program has increased by 20%. Thus, similar to traditional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy provides advantages over open donor nephrectomy without increasing costs.

Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in India

CONTEXT

Many countries have a shortage of kidneys available for transplantation. Paying people to donate kidneys is often proposed or justified as a way to benefit recipients by increasing the supply of organs and to benefit donors by improving their economic status. However, whether individuals who sell their kidneys actually benefit from the sale is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the economic and health effects of selling a kidney.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional survey conducted in February 2001 among 305 individuals who had sold a kidney in Chennai, India, an average of 6 years before the survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reasons for selling kidney, amount received from sale, how money was spent, change in economic status, change in health status, advice for others contemplating selling a kidney.

RESULTS

Ninety-six percent of participants sold their kidneys to pay off debts. The average amount received was 1070 US dollars. Most of the money received was spent on debts, food, and clothing. Average family income declined by one third after nephrectomy (P<.001), and the number of participants living below the poverty line increased. Three fourths of participants were still in debt at the time of the survey. About 86% of participants reported a deterioration in their health status after nephrectomy. Seventy-nine percent would not recommend that others sell a kidney.

CONCLUSIONS

Among paid donors in India, selling a kidney does not lead to a long-term economic benefit and may be associated with a decline in health. Physicians and policy makers should reexamine the value of using financial incentives to increase the supply of organs for transplantation.

Laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy: a cost-utility analysis of the initial experience at a tertiary-care center

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) offers donors more rapid postoperative recovery and recipients equivalent graft function when compared with open donor nephrectomy (OpenDN). Nonetheless, costs are less favorable for LapDN than for OpenDN. We compared LapDN and OpenDN with cost-utility analysis.

METHODS

A decision analysis modeling approach was performed: utilities derived using time trade-off and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) techniques; probabilities derived from a systematic review of the literature. All costs were included from a societal perspective using actual cost data from OpenDN and LapDN patients performed contemporaneously between July 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000. Costs of lost employment were estimated using mean provincial annual earnings. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with "best-case" and "worst-case" scenarios for confidence intervals; sensitivity analyses were used to assess robustness.

RESULTS

LapDN costs are higher ($10,317.40 vs. $9,853.70), while quality of life (QOL) is superior (0.7683 vs. 0.7062). The ICER from a societal perspective was C$7,471.11/QALY. If all donor nephrectomies nationally were performed laparoscopically, there would be an additional annual cost of C$665,240 with a societal gain of 24.84 QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

LapDN offers improved QOL at marginally higher cost. A societal ICER of $7,471.11/QALY compares favorably to many accepted health-care interventions. By potentially increasing organ donor rates, LapDN may be cost saving by decreasing the number of patients on dialysis.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: why not?

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has undergone explosive worldwide growth as the method of choice for removal of living donor kidneys. However, the method does have some distinct disadvantages as well. The objective is to define real and potential difficulties with the generalized uncritical acceptance of this surgical technique.

METHODS

The literature and personal experience at the largest laparoscopic donor program were reviewed and consolidated. Critical areas of technique and management were analyzed.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy has increased the pool of willing potential renal donors. In experienced has the recipient renal function results are equivalent to open nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

There are risks in performing the operation to the donor and to the allograft. These risks are potentially catastrophic and mitigate against any casual attitudes about embarking on a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy program.

Cost comparison for laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: analysis of individual parameters

OBJECTIVES

To identify the cost components of laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) that could be targeted to reduce the cost of the procedure. LN is typically more costly than open nephrectomy (ON) because of longer operative times and the use of disposable equipment.

METHODS

We compared the overall cost and individual cost centers for uncomplicated LN (n = 11) and ON (n = 8) at a large metropolitan county hospital. A model was created using the DATA program (TreeAge software, version 3.5) to compare the costs of treatment with either ON or LN. We conducted a series of one-way sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effect of varying individual probabilities and costs. Two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the costs of ON and LN while varying the hospital length of stay, operative time, and cost of laparoscopic equipment.

RESULTS

LN was less costly overall than ON by $1211 (P = 0.037), despite significant differences favoring ON in overall operating room costs and operating room supply costs. The cost superiority of LN was a consequence of statistically significant differences in the cost of hospitalization, including room and board, that favored the laparoscopic group. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that LN was less costly if (a) the operative time of LN was less than 281 minutes; (b) the length of hospitalization after LN was less than 5.8 days; (c) the operating room costs for LN were less than $3439; (d) the laparoscopic equipment costs were less than $2129; (e) the ON time exceeded 78 minutes; (f) the length of hospitalization for ON was more than 3.6 days; or (g) the operating room costs for ON were greater than $1333.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity analyses enable individual surgeons and institutions to determine the cost impact of ON and LN, given their unique clinical scenarios. At our institution, key cost centers in determining cost effectiveness include length of operating time, hospitalization, and cost of laparoscopic instrumentation for ON and LN. LN is cost effective compared with ON if short operating times and brief length of stays are achieved.

Subjective and objective comparison of critical care pathways for open donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE

In the era of minimally invasive techniques and cost containment, care pathways after donor nephrectomy are important. While open donor nephrectomy remains the established procedure, questions regarding the surgical approach, postoperative care and patient morbidity/dissatisfaction have surfaced. We compared results of standard and fast-track care pathways after donor nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 1998 and August 1999, 60 patients underwent open donor nephrectomy. By surgeon preference, patients received either ketorolac only (31), ketorolac plus morphine spinal (17) or patient controlled anesthesia (12). Data related to surgery, hospital course and cost were reviewed. Patients were surveyed regarding return to daily activities and groups were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean dose per patient was 183 (ketorolac only), 180 (ketorolac plus morphine spinal) and 69 (patient controlled analgesia) mg. Median hospital stay was 2 days for the fast-track pathways (ketorolac only, ketorolac plus morphine spinal) compared to 3 days for the patient controlled analgesia group (p <0.001). Delayed oral intake was seen in 6% of patients on ketorolac only and 3% for those on ketorolac plus morphine spinal compared to 83% of the patient controlled analgesia group (p <0.001). Return to exercise (median weeks, p <0.79) was 2 for the ketorolac only group, 3.5 for ketorolac plus morphine spinal and 3.5 for patient controlled analgesia. Mean global cost was $9,394 for the ketorolac only group, $9,238 for ketorolac plus morphine spinal and $11,601 for patient controlled analgesia (p <0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-track pathways significantly shortened hospital stay and quickened oral intake. Cost was significantly contained using new pathways. Resumption of daily activities was comparable among the groups. Comparisons of critical care pathways are required to optimize patient care after kidney donation. Prospective trials are needed to verify our results.

Hypertension and renovascular disease: follow-up on 100 renal vein renin samplings

The clinical value of renal vein renin sampling (RVRS) as a prognostic tool in the treatment of renovascular hypertension was evaluated. One hundred consecutive patients were included over a 4-year period of time. About half of the patients (49%) were treated interventionally by PTRA (21%), nephrectomy (20%), or vascular surgery (8%). Seven patients (15%) were cured and 15 (32%) had improved (reduction in antihypertensive medicine) after 6 months follow-up, whereas three patients (6%) were cured and 12 (26%) improved after 3-4 years follow-up. Thus, the number of patients cured or improved is comparable with the results from our department reported 20 years ago. However, in the present report, more than twice as many patients were enrolled, leading to double costs. Different indices of lateralisation of the renin generation were calculated for the use in cases of a shrunken kidney (functional share < or =15%). None of the indices clearly discriminated between the patients who did benefit from intervention, and those who did not. The only positive finding was that a peripheral renin concentration lower than 8 mlU/l predicted no effect of intervention, which might lead to the exclusion of 11% of the patients before entering the diagnostic programme. We conclude that the RVRS demands a very restrictive referral pattern if it should be of prognostic value for the blood pressure outcome after intervention. No indices of lateralised renin concentrations proved high predictive value. However, a peripheral renin concentration low in the normal range seems useful as an indicator of no benefit from intervention.

Laparoscopy-assisted live donor nephrectomy: a modified cost-effective approach for developing countries

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Because of the prohibitive cost of laparoscopic disposable instruments such as the PneumoSleeve, Endocatch, and vascular staples, laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy has not gained wide acceptance in many developing countries. To circumvent this problem, we have developed a cost-saving approach, which is described herein and compared with the open method.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy at our institute, of which two were performed by the hand-assisted technique, five by the technique described by Fabrizio et al and forty-two by our modified cost-saving laparoscopy-assisted technique (LD). The latter patients were compared with 50 patients who had a standard open donor nephrectomy (OD) through a rib-resecting (12th rib) flank incision. Our technique is similar to the procedure described by Fabrizio et al except for a 6- to 8-cm incision placed in the subcostal region to retrieve the kidney after the renal vessels are cut and ligated as in the open procedure. The costs of the various techniques at our institute were compared.

RESULTS

The LD and OD groups were similar in terms of age, weight, side of nephrectomy, and number of renal vessels. The operative time was longer in the LD group than in the OD group (180.7 +/- 18 minutes v 101.5 +/- 10.4 minutes), whereas the mean intraoperative blood loss was less (85.5 +/- 21.35 v 220 +/- 22.5 mL; P < 0.001). Warm ischemia time and recipient outcomes were comparable in the two groups. Patients in the LD group had lower postoperative narcotic (tramadol hydrochloride) requirement (155.3 +/- 53.3 mg v 251.8 +/- 63.1 mg; P < 0.001) and earlier discharge from the hospital (3.14 v 5.7 days; P < 0.001). The mean expense incurred was US$175 v US$160 in the LD and OD groups, respectively. The cost of the hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic techniques was significantly higher than that of our modified technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modified technique of laparoscopy-assisted live-donor nephrectomy avoids the use of costly disposables yet offers the advantages of lesser morbidity and small incision of LD. It is cost effective and is an alternative to open nephrectomy in the developing world.

Financial analysis of open versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy are rapidly becoming established procedures in select patients with renal cell carcinoma and upper tract transitional cell carcinoma, respectively. We present a retrospective comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy from a financial standpoint. The effect of the learning curve on costs incurred was also evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Detailed itemized cost data on 18 contemporary cases of open radical nephrectomy performed from September 1997 to July 1998 were compared with similar data on 20 initial laparoscopic cases performed from September 1997 to July 1998 and 15 more recent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases performed from August 1998 to July 1999. Financial data were also compared on 14 contemporary patients each who underwent open radical nephroureterectomy from June 1997 to December 1999, initial laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy from June 1997 to December 1998 and more recent laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy from January 1999 to October 2000. Yearly financial costs were adjusted for inflation by a 4% annual rate to reflect year 2000 data.

RESULTS

For radical nephrectomy mean operative time in the 18 open, 20 initial laparoscopic and 15 recent laparoscopic cases was 185.3, 205.7 and 147.3 minutes, respectively. Mean specimen weight was 555, 616 and 558 gm., and mean hospital stay was 132, 31 and 23 hours, respectively. Compared with open radical nephrectomy mean total costs associated with initial laparoscopy were 33% greater (p = 0.0003). Mean intraoperative costs were 102% greater and mean postoperative costs were 50% less. In contrast, the more recent laparoscopic cases were an overall mean of 12% less expensive than open surgery (p = 0.05). Mean intraoperative costs were only 33% greater and mean postoperative costs were 68% less. For radical nephroureterectomy mean operative time in the 14 open, 14 initial laparoscopic and 14 recent laparoscopic cases was 246, 196 and 195 minutes, respectively. Mean specimen weight was 442, 517 and 531 gm., and mean hospital stay was 142, 63 and 32 hours, respectively. Compared with open radical nephroureterectomy mean total costs associated with initial laparoscopic cases were 28% greater (p = 0.03). Mean intraoperative costs were 65% greater and mean postoperative costs were 27% less. In contrast, the more recent laparoscopic cases were an overall mean of 6% less expensive than open surgery (p = 0.63). Mean intraoperative costs were only 31% greater and mean postoperative costs were 62% less.

CONCLUSIONS

Initially in the learning curve laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy were 33% and 28% financially more expensive, respectively, than their open counterparts. However, with increased operator experience and efficiency resulting in more rapid operative time and decreased hospitalization laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy are currently 12% and 6% less expensive, respectively, than their open counterparts at our institution.