Short- and long-term costs of laparoscopic colectomy are significantly less than open colectomy

The impact of surgeon choices on costs associated with uncomplicated minimally invasive colectomy: you are not as important as you think

Background

There is increasing public discussion about the escalating cost of healthcare in America. There are no published data regarding the contribution of individual surgeons’ choices on the cost of uncomplicated minimally invasive colectomy.

Methods

A review of a hospital cost-accounting database of the direct costs related to the index operation and post-operative care of all patients who underwent elective minimally invasive segmental colectomy over a 1-year period was performed.

Results

A total of 111 cases were enrolled in this study, 18 of which were performed robotically. The average direct cost after minimally invasive colectomy was $5536. The cost of robotic colectomy was 53% greater than laparoscopic ($7806 vs $5096, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in overall costs among laparoscopic cases performed by three surgeons ($5099 vs $5108 vs $5055, p = 0.987). Average operating room supply costs among the three surgeons were $1236, $1105 and $1030, respectively (p = 0.067), with a standard deviation of $328 (6.4% of overall cost).

Conclusions

No significant difference in overall costs between surgeons was demonstrated despite varied training, experience levels and operative techniques. Total costs are relatively institutionally fixed and minimally influenced by variations in individual surgeon preferences.

Rethinking Priorities: Cost of Complications After Elective Colectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare incremental costs associated with complications of elective colectomy using nationally representative data among patients undergoing laparoscopic/open resections for the 4 most frequent diagnoses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Rising healthcare costs have led to increasing focus on the need to achieve a better understanding of the association between costs and quality. Among elective colectomies, a focus of surgical quality-improvement initiatives, interpretable evidence to support existing approaches is lacking.

METHODS

The 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data were queried for adult (≥18 years) patients undergoing elective colectomy. Patients with primary diagnoses for colon cancer, diverticular disease, benign colonic neoplasm, and ulcerative colitis/regional enteritis were included. Based on system-based complications considered relevant to long-term treatment of elective colectomy, stratified differences in risk-adjusted incremental hospital costs and complications probabilities were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 68,462 patients were included, weighted to represent 337,887 patients nationwide. A total of 16.4% experienced complications. Annual risk-adjusted incremental costs amounted to >$150 million. Magnitudes of complication prevalences/costs varied by primary diagnosis, operative technique, and complication group. Infectious complications contributed the most ($55 million), followed by gastrointestinal ($53 million), pulmonary ($22 million), and cardiovascular ($11 million) complications. Total annual costs for elective colectomies amounted to >$1.7 billion: 11.3% was due to complications [1.9% due to current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) complications].

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight a need to consider the varied/broad impact of complications, offering a stratified paradigm for priority setting in surgery. As we move forward in the development of novel/adaptation of existing interventions, it will be essential to weigh the cost of complications in an evidence-based way.

Scope or scalpel? A matched study of the treatment of large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Large colorectal polyps can be treated either endoscopically or by formal resection. The aim of this study was to clarify the relative advantages and disadvantages of surgical resection and colonoscopic snaring as means of treating large colorectal polyps.

METHODS

This is a matched cohort study, comparing cases of surgical resection of benign colorectal polyps with endoscopic resection. Cases drawn from pathology and endoscopy databases were matched for the size and site of polyps, and the groups were compared for the end points of complications, length of hospital stay and completeness of the removal of the polyp.

RESULTS

There were 78 patients in each group, with mean ages of 65.6 years (colonoscopy) and 66.8 years (surgery). A total of 39 of the surgery group and 47 of the colonoscopy group were men. Mean polyp size was 34.1 mm (colonoscopy) and 32.1 mm (surgery). There was an exact match for polyp location. Complications occurred in eight colonoscopy patients (10.3%) and 42 surgery patients (56.0%) (P < 0.001, chi-square). Length of hospital stay was 0 days for colonoscopy patients and 7.3 ± 4.7 days for surgery (P < 0.001). The surgery group was separated into laparoscopic (n = 35) and open (n = 43) surgery. There was no difference in complication rates (42.4 versus 53.5%, respectively) but laparoscopic had shorter length of stay (5.8 days ± 4.9 SD versus 8.4 days ± 4.3 SD). Recurrence of surgically resected polyps was zero; at last follow-up 13% of snared polyps persisted.

CONCLUSION

Although resection is a more certain and absolute way of treating benign polyps, endoscopic polypectomy is preferable.

A cost comparison of laparoscopic and open colon surgery in a publicly funded academic institution

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the total hospital cost of laparoscopic (lap) and open colon surgery at a publicly funded academic institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open colon surgery for all indications at the University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, from April 2004 to March 2009 were included. Patient demographic, operative, and outcome data were reviewed retrospectively. Hospital costs were determined from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, adjusted for inflation, and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between length of stay and total hospital cost.

RESULTS

There were 391 elective colon resections (223 lap/168 open, 15.4 % conversion). There was no difference in median age, gender, or Charlson score. Body mass index was slightly higher for laparoscopic surgery (27.5/25.9 lap/open; p = 0.008), while the American Society of Anesthesiologists score was slightly higher for open surgery. Median operative time was greater for laparoscopic surgery (224/196 min, lap/open; p = 0.001). There was no difference in complication rates (21.6/22.5 % lap/open; p = 0.900), reoperations (5.8/6.5 % lap/open; p = 0.833) or 30-day readmissions (7.6/12.5 % lap/open; p = 0.122). Number of emergency room visits was greater with open surgery (12.6/20.8 % lap/open; p = 0.037). Operative cost was higher for laparoscopic surgery ($4,171.37/3,489.29 lap/open; p = 0.001), while total hospital cost was significantly reduced ($9,600.22/12,721.41 lap/open; p = 0.001). Median length of stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (5/7 days lap/open; p = 0.000), and this correlated directly with hospital cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colon surgery is associated with increased operative costs but significantly lower total hospital costs. The cost savings is related, in part, to reduced length of stay with laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic versus an open colectomy in an emergency setting: a case-controlled study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopy continues to be increasingly adopted for elective colorectal resections. However, its role in an emergency setting remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomies performed for emergency colorectal conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic colectomies for various surgical conditions was performed. These patients were matched for age, gender, surgical diagnosis and type of surgery with patients who underwent emergency open colectomies.

RESULTS

Twenty-three emergency laparoscopic colectomies were performed from April 2006 to October 2011 for patients with lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding (6), colonic obstruction (4) and colonic perforation (13). The hand-assisted laparoscopic technique was utilized in 15 cases (65.2%). There were 4 (17.4%) conversions to the open technique. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (175 minutes vs. 145 minutes, P = 0.04), and the duration of hospitalization was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 days vs. 7 days, P = 0.15). The overall postoperative morbidity rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.93), with only 3 patients in each group requiring postoperative surgical intensive-care-unit stays or reoperations. There were no mortalities. The cost analysis did not demonstrate any significant differences in the procedural (P = 0.57) and the nonprocedural costs (P = 0.48) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Emergency laparoscopic colectomy in a carefully-selected patient group is safe. Although the operative times were longer, the postoperative outcomes were comparable to those of the open technique. The laparoscopic group did not incur a higher cost.

Improved short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open resection for colon and rectal cancer in an area health service: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Evidence demonstrates short-term benefits of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. The situation for rectal cancer is less clear.

OBJECTIVES

This review assessed the use and short-term outcomes of elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resections within an area health service.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter, retrospective review of a prospective database.

SETTINGS

All elective colon and rectal cancer resections in the western zone of Sydney South West Area Health Service from 2001 until 2008 were included.

PATIENTS

Included were 1721 patients who underwent either a laparoscopic colon (n = 434) or rectal (n = 157) resection or an open colon (n = 742) or rectal (n = 388) resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

: Outcome measures included operating time, blood loss, adequacy of resection, conversion rate, intensive care unit admission, length of stay, and 26 acute postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Patients were matched for age, sex, ASA, BMI, and tumor stage. Laparoscopic surgery increased in frequency. Fewer patients experienced a complication in both the laparoscopic colon (28.8 vs 54.4%; p < 0.0001) and rectal (41.4 vs 60.3%; p < 0.0001) group irrespective of age. Laparoscopic operating time for colon and rectal cancer was 24.1 minutes (p < 0.0001) and 25.8 minutes (p < 0.0001) longer, with a low conversion-to-open rate (6.5% and 8.3%; p = 0.44). Laparoscopic surgery resulted in fewer transfusions (0.4 vs 0.7 units; p = 0.0028) and length of stay (7 vs 10 days; p = 0.0011) for colon cancers, and reduced intraoperative hemoglobin drop (20.5 vs 24.8; p = 0.029) and intensive care unit admissions (26.8 vs 36.3%; p = 0.032) for rectal cancers.

LIMITATIONS

: This was a nonrandomized study with rectal cancers more often resected with the open technique (71.2 vs 28.8%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within an area health service, elective laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer had improved short-term outcomes in comparison with open surgery.