The impact of surgeon choice on the cost of performing laparoscopic appendectomy

Laparoscopic appendectomy, stump closure and endoloops: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the main indications for urgent surgery. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has shown advantages in terms of clinical results and cost-effectiveness, even if there is still controversy about different devices to utilize, especially with regards to the endoloop (EL) vs endostapler (ES) when it comes to stump closure.

AIM

To compare safety and cost-effectiveness of EL vs ES.

METHODS

From a prospectively maintained database, data of 996 consecutive patients treated by LA with a 3 years-follow up in the department of Emergency General Surgery - St Orsola University Hospital, Bologna (Italy) were retrieved. A meta-analysis was performed in terms of surgical complications, in comparison to the international literature published from 1995 to 2021.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis showed no evidence regarding wound infections, abdominal abscesses, and total post-operative complications, in terms of superiority of a surgical technique for the stump closure in LA.

CONCLUSION

Even when AA is complicated, the routine use of EL is safe in most patients.

Fuentes de energía en apendicectomía laparoscópica en un programa académico de Cirugía general en Colombia

Introducción. La apendicectomía por laparoscopia se considera el patrón de oro en el tratamiento de la apendicitis aguda. Sin embargo, su disponibilidad es limitada en nuestro sistema de salud, principalmente por los costos asociados. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la relación entre el uso de los diferentes tipos de energía y los métodos de ligadura de la base apendicular, con las complicaciones postoperatorias, al igual que describir los costos asociados. Métodos. Estudio observacional analítico de una cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes mayores de 15 años a quienes se les realizó apendicectomía por laparoscopia, en un hospital universitario entre los años 2014 y 2018. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión logística y lineal para evaluar la relación entre métodos de ligadura del meso y base apendicular, desenlaces operatorios y costos. Resultados. Se realizaron 2074 apendicectomías por laparoscopia, 58,2 % (n=1207) en mujeres, la edad mediana fue de 32 años. En el 71,5 % (n=1483) la apendicitis aguda no fue complicada. La energía monopolar para la ligadura del meso apendicular fue la utilizada más frecuentemente en 57,2 % (n=1187) y el Hem-o-lok® el más utilizado para la ligadura de la base apendicular en el 84,8 % (n=1759) de los pacientes. No se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la tasa de infección del sitio operatorio, reintervención o íleo. El uso de energía simple redujo los costos del procedimiento de manera significativa durante el período evaluado. Discusión. El uso de energía monopolar demostró ser una técnica segura, reproducible y de menor costo en comparación con el uso de energía bipolar, independientemente de la fase de la apendicitis aguda. Lo anterior ha permitido que se realicen más apendicectomías por laparoscopia y que los médicos residentes de cirugía general puedan realizar procedimientos laparoscópicos de forma más temprana.

Surgical tray reduction for cost saving in pediatric surgical cases: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Standardization of surgical instrument trays and doctor preference cards (DPC) are known to reduce the cost of adult surgical cases. The practice in pediatric surgery may be more complex owing to a wide range of patient age, leading to difficulty with practice implementation and loss of potential financial savings, which underscore the importance of the review of this topic.

METHODS

A systematic review of pediatric surgical tray standardization and cost-effectiveness was performed. Original and review articles from 2000 to 2018 were extracted from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane, and an electronic search through Scopus. After screening by inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were selected and reviewed.

RESULTS

Five articles were included. On average, discontinuation of disposable instruments and standardization of equipment resulted in a removal of 40%-70% of surgical instruments per set. This yielded a cost savings of 20% (an average US $200), with no intraoperative complications or perceived safety issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardization of operating room (OR) doctor preference cards (DPC) and surgical instrument trays in pediatric surgical cases result in lower operative supply costs without impacting OR time or safety.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

Cost-Effective Approach to the Laparoscopic Appendectomy : Balancing Disposable Instrument Cost With Operative Time

BACKGROUND

Surgeons can help reduce health care spending by selecting affordable and efficient instruments. The laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is commonly performed and can serve as a model for improving health care cost.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all adult patients who underwent LA for non-perforated appendicitis from March 2015 to November 2017. Our objective was to determine which combination of disposable instruments afforded the lowest total operative cost without compromising postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 1857 consecutive patients were reviewed from 2 hospitals. After determining the 8 most commonly utilized combinations of disposable instruments, 846 patients were ultimately analyzed. The combination of a LigaSure, Endoloop, and an EndoBag (LEB) had the shortest median operative time (25 minutes, P < .001) and lowest median total operative cost ($1893, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The LEB instrument combination rendered the shortest operative time, lowest total operative cost, and can be used to maximize surgical value during LA.

Financial Impact of Surgical Technique in the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis in Children

Appendicitis is the most common emergent problem encountered by pediatric surgeons. Driven by improved cosmetic outcomes, many surgeons are offering pediatric patients single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy. We sought to investigate the financial impact of different surgical approaches to appendectomy. A retrospective study of patients with acute appendicitis undergoing appendectomy from February 2010 to September 2011 was conducted. Based on surgeon preference, patients underwent open appendectomy (OA), laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), or single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA). Demographic information, surgical outcomes, surgical supply costs, and total direct costs were recorded. A total of 465 patients underwent appendectomy during the study. The mean age of all patients was 11.2 years (range, 1 to 18 years). There were no conversions in the LA or SILA groups. There was a significant difference among surgical technique in regard to surgical supply costs (OA $159 vs LA $650 vs SILA $814, P < 0.01) and total direct costs (OA $2129 vs LA $2624 vs SILA $2991, P < 0.01). In our institution, both multiport laparoscopic and SILA carry higher costs when compared with OA, largely as a result of the cost of disposable instrumentation. Cost efficiency should be considered by surgeons when undertaking a minimally invasive approach to appendectomy.

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.

A systematic review on the cost evaluation of two different laparoscopic surgical techniques among 996 appendectomies from a single center

Acute appendicitis is one of the main indications for urgent surgery representing a high-volume procedure worldwide. The current spending review in Italy (and not only in this country) affects the health service and warrants care regarding the use of different surgical devices. The aim of our study is to perform a cost evaluation, comparing the use of endoloops and staplers in complicated acute appendicitis (phlegmonous and gangrenous), taking into consideration the cost of the device in relation to the management of any associated postoperative complications. We retrospectively evaluated 996 laparoscopic appendectomies of adult patients performed in the Emergency General Surgery-St. Orsola University Hospital in Bologna (Italy). Surgical procedures together with the related choice of using endoloops or staplers were performed by attending surgeons or resident surgeons supervised by a tutor. A systematic review was performed to compare our outcomes with those reported in the literature. In our experience, the routine use of endoloop leads to a real estimated saving of 375€ for each performed laparoscopic appendectomy, even considering post-operative complications. Comparing endoloop and stapler groups, the total number of complications is significantly lower in the endoloop group. Our systematic review confirmed these findings even if the superiority of one technique has not been proved yet. Our analysis shows that the routine use of endoloop is safe in most patients affected by acute appendicitis, even when complicated, and it is a cost-effective device even when taking into consideration extra costs for potential post-operative complications.

Cost containment: an experience with surgeon education and universal preference cards at two institutions

BACKGROUND

As the cost of health care increases in the US, focus has been placed upon efficiency, cost reduction, and containment of spending. Operating room costs play a significant role in this spending. We investigated whether surgeon education and universal preference cards can have an impact on reducing the disposable supply costs for common laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

METHODS

General surgeons at two institutions participated in an educational session about the costs of the operative supplies used to perform laparoscopic appendectomies and cholecystectomies. All the surgeons at one institution agreed upon a universal preference card, with other supplies opened only by request. At the other, no universal preference cards were created, and surgeons were free to modify their own existing preference cards. Case cost data for these procedures were collected for each institution pre- (July 2014-December 2014) and post-intervention (February 2015-November 2017).

RESULTS

At the institution with an education only program, there was no statistically significant change in supply costs after the intervention. At the institution that intervened with the combined education and universal preference card program, there was a statistically significant supply cost decrease for these common laparoscopic procedures combined. This significant cost decrease persisted for each appendectomies and cholecystectomies when analyzed independently as well (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, surgeon education alone was not effective in reducing operating room disposable supply costs. Surgeon education, combined with the implementation of universal preference cards, significantly maintains reductions in operating room supply costs. As health care costs continue to increase in the US and internationally, universal preference cards can be an effective tool to contain cost for common laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

Surgical instrument standardization - A pilot cost consciousness curriculum for surgery residents

INTRODUCTION

Surgical cost is astronomical in the US and instrument standardization is one potential mechanism for cost savings. This study describes a core competency based, multidisciplinary curriculum and evaluates resident attitudes towards operating room equipment standardization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As part of a quality improvement initiative, surgery residents participated in an hour-long mixed curriculum consisting of brief didactics and small group exercises. Participants developed an equipment standardization plan for laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy. Participants also completed surveys to assess their attitudes towards 11 potential barriers to implementation as "improves, no change, or worsens".

RESULTS

Fifteen general surgery residents participated. In general, participants felt that standardization improves or does not change metrics including surgeon autonomy, resident training experience, and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

Our pilot curriculum addresses a gap in resident education about surgical cost. Residents generally regard equipment standardization as either improving or not changing hospital metrics.

Staplers vs. loop-ligature: a cost analysis from the hospital payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Presently, there is equipoise regarding the surgical technique used to manage the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. The purpose of this research was to determine whether the routine use of loop ligature, compared to stapling, is cost effective from a hospital payer perspective.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted amongst patients undergoing emergency laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis at two major academic hospitals. In order to eliminate possible systematic bias arising from one technique being preferentially employed with more complex presentations, patients were divided into study groups based on the technique routinely employed by their surgeon, loop ligature (LLA) versus stapler (LSA). Pediatric patients and open appendectomies were excluded. Costs were determined using a previously published model derived from publicly available data from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, in conjunction with local cost data for disposable procurement. Secondary outcomes included operating room time, length of stay, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Between Jan 1, 2014 and Dec 31, 2015, 567 adult patients had an emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. In comparing surgeons who routinely employed LLA to LSA, there was a significant decrease in total mean hospital cost with LLA ($1988 ± $143 vs. $2253 ± $99, p = 0.002). In addition, mean disposable cost was reduced for surgeons using LLA ($310 ± $27 vs. $668 ± $26, p < 0.001). This reduction in cost was not associated with a difference in length of stay (1.5 vs. 1.4 days, p = 0.28) or complication rates (8% vs. 10%, p = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that surgeons who routinely use loop ligature to secure the appendiceal base during emergency laparoscopic appendectomy offer more cost-effective care compared to stapler users, saving their institution more than $200 per case with no clear disadvantages. A shift from routine use of staplers to loop ligature should result in significant overall cost savings to the hospital.

Outcomes and Costs of Common Surgical Procedures at Children's and Nonchildren's Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Variations in the management of pediatric patients at children's hospitals (CHs) and non-CHs (NCHs) have been well described, especially within the trauma literature. However, little is known about the outcomes and costs of common general surgical procedures at NCHs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CH designation on the outcomes and costs of appendectomy and cholecystectomy.

METHODS

The Kids' Inpatient Database (2003-2012) was queried for patients aged under 18 y who underwent appendectomy or cholecystectomy at CHs and NCHs. Outcomes analyzed included disease severity, complications, laparoscopy, length of stay (LOS), and cost.

RESULTS

Most of appendectomies and cholecystectomies were performed at NCHs. Overall, CHs cared for younger children were more likely to be teaching hospitals, had higher costs, and longer LOS. On multivariate analysis for appendectomies, CHs were associated with higher rates of perforated appendicitis (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.42-1.66, P < 0.001), less complications (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.61-0.75, P < 0.001), increased laparoscopy (OR = 2.93, 95% CI = 2.36-3.64, P < 0.001), longer LOS (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.09-1.17, P < 0.001), and higher costs (exponentiated log $ = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.13-1.24, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis for cholecystectomies revealed that CHs were associated with less laparoscopy (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.50-0.67, P < 0.001), longer LOS (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.19-1.34, P < 0.001), and higher costs (exponentiated log $ = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.22-1.37, P < 0.001) with similar complications. Independent predictors of LOS and cost included CH designation, negative appendectomy, perforated appendicitis, complications, younger age, black patients, and public insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in surgical management, outcomes, and costs after appendectomy and cholecystectomy exist between CHs and NCHs. CHs excelled in treating complicated appendicitis. NCHs effectively performed cholecystectomies. These differences in outcomes require further investigation to identify modifiable factors to optimize care across all hospitals for these common surgical diseases.

Variation in Laparoscopic Nephrectomy Surgical Costs: Opportunities for High Value Care Delivery

Introduction

Rising health care costs are leading to efforts to minimize costs while maintaining high quality care. Practice variation in the operating room that is not dictated by patient necessity or clinical guidelines presents an opportunity for cost containment. We identified variation in surgical supply costs among urological surgeons performing laparoscopic nephrectomy and evaluated whether this variation was associated with patient outcomes.

Methods

A total of 211 consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed at an academic center between September 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015 were identified and surgical supply costs for each case were determined from the institutional negotiated rate. Patient and surgical factors relevant to case complexity, comorbidity and perioperative outcomes were obtained. Univariate and multivariable analysis of predictors of surgical supply costs and patient outcome as determined by length of stay was conducted.

Results

Median supply cost was $2,537, with individual medians ranging from $1,642 to $4,524, representing a significant variation among surgeons (p <0.01). On multivariable analysis, accounting for patient factors and case complexity, most surgeons remained significant predictors of surgical supply costs. Case supply cost was not a significant predictor of patient outcomes as measured by length of stay on univariate or multivariable analysis controlling for surgeon, patient factors and case complexity.

Conclusions

Significant variation in surgeons' surgical supply costs for laparoscopic nephrectomy exists and is driven by surgeons, and this does not correlate with length of stay. Targeting variation in surgical supply costs in this setting represents an opportunity for cost savings without adversely impacting patient outcomes.

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.

Improving the value of care for appendectomy through an individual surgeon-specific approach

PURPOSE

Standardized care via a unified surgeon preference card for pediatric appendectomy can result in significant cost reduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of cost and outcome feedback to surgeons on value of care in an environment reluctant to adopt a standardized surgeon preference card.

METHODS

Prospective observational study comparing operating room (OR) supply costs and patient outcomes for appendectomy in children with 6-month observation periods both before and after intervention. The intervention was real-time feedback of OR supply cost data to individual surgeons via automated dashboards and monthly reports.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen children underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for non-perforated appendicitis (110 pre-intervention and 106 post-intervention). Median supply cost significantly decreased after intervention: $884 (IQR $705-$1025) to $388 (IQR $182-$776), p<0.001. No significant change was detected in median OR duration (47min [IQR 36-63] to 50min [IQR 38-64], p=0.520) or adverse events (1 [0.9%] to 6 [4.7%], p=0.062). OR supply costs for individual surgeons significantly decreased during the intervention period for 6 of 8 surgeons (87.5%).

CONCLUSION

Approaching value measurement with a surgeon-specific (rather than group-wide) approach can reduce OR supply costs while maintaining excellent clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Looped suture versus stapler device in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy: a comparative outcomes and intraoperative cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal ligation during pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) may be performed using looped suture versus stapler. Controversy regarding the utility of either method exists. Clinical outcomes and cost analysis of LA with both methods were compared.

METHODS

All pediatric LA were performed from fiscal years 2013 and 2014 by two pediatric surgeons. While one surgeon used looped suture, the other used stapler exclusively. chi-Square tests were performed to analyze associations.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-eight cases were analyzed where looped suture versus stapler LA was performed in 46% and 54% of patients, respectively. Operating room costs were $317.10 and $707.12/person for looped suture and stapler LA, respectively (P<0.0001). Difference in cost of $390.02/person was attributed solely to ligation type. On bivariate analysis, rate of in-hospital complications, length of stay, return-to-ER and readmission within 30 days did not significantly differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

A comparative analysis of looped suture versus stapler device during LA for pediatric appendicitis revealed that postoperative complications, length of stay, ER visits and readmissions were not significantly different. Looped suture LA was significantly more cost efficient than stapler LA. In pediatric appendicitis, appendiceal ligation during LA may be performed safely and cost effectively with looped suture versus stapler.

TYPE OF STUDY

Cost effectiveness LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Endoloop versus endostapler: what is the best option for appendiceal stump closure in children with complicated appendicitis? Results of a multicentric international survey

BACKGROUND

There is a limited and conflicting evidence about the most appropriate method for appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). We aimed to compare endoloop (EL) versus endostapler (ES) for stump closure during LA for complicated perforated appendicitis in children.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 708 patients (463 boys and 245 girls with an average age of 9.8 years) who underwent LA for complicated appendicitis in 5 international centers of Pediatric Surgery over a 5-years period (January 2011-December 2016). The appendix was perforated with localized peritonitis in 470 cases and diffuse peritonitis in 238 patients. EL was used in 374 cases (G1), whereas ES was adopted in 334 cases (G2).

RESULTS

No intra-operative complication occurred in both groups but 5 conversions to open surgery were reported in G1 (1.3%) and 4 in G2 (1.1%) (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.30-4.19). Use of EL was significantly associated with higher incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.84-2.18), postoperative ileus (OR 3.61; 95% CI 0.76-17.11), and re-operations/readmissions (OR 6.46; 95% CI 1.46-28.62) compared to ES. The average cost of supplies for LA was significantly higher in G2 (€ 915.60) compared to G1 (€ 578.36) (p = 0.0001). The average cost of re-operations/readmissions was significantly higher in G1 (€ 4.091,39) compared to G2 (€ 2.127,88) (p = 0.0001) (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.47-2.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first in the pediatric population to demonstrate that the method used for appendiceal stump closure may influence the outcome of LA in complicated appendicitis. Although ES is more expensive compared to EL, our results demonstrated that appendix stump closure should be performed using ES rather than EL in complicated perforated appendicitis since its use was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess and postoperative ileus and lower re-operations and readmissions rates and costs.

Surgeon Variation in Intraoperative Supply Cost for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is Intraoperative Supply Cost Associated with Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

With increased scrutiny on the quality and cost of health care, surgeons must be mindful of their outcomes and resource use. We evaluated surgeon-specific intraoperative supply cost (ISC) for pancreaticoduodenectomy and examined whether ISC was associated with patient outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing open pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2012 and March 2015 were included. Outcomes were tracked prospectively through postoperative day 90, and ISC was defined as the facility cost of single-use surgical items and instruments, plus facility charges for multiuse equipment. Multivariate logistic regression was used to test associations between ISC and patient outcomes using repeated measures at the surgeon level.

RESULTS

There were 249 patients who met inclusion criteria. Median ISC was $1,882 (interquartile range [IQR] $1,497 to $2,281). Case volume for 6 surgeons ranged from 18 to 66. Median surgeon-specific ISC ranged from $1,496 to $2,371. Greater case volume was associated with decreased ISC (p < 0.001). Overall, ISC was not predictive of postoperative complications (p = 0.702) or total hospitalization expenditures (p = 0.195). At the surgeon level, surgeon-specific ISC was not associated with the surgeon-specific incidence of severe complication or any wound infection (p > 0.227 for both), but was associated with delayed gastric emptying (p = 0.004) and postoperative pancreatic fistula (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-institution cohort of 249 pancreaticoduodenectomies, high-volume surgeons tended to be low-cost surgeons. Across the cohort, ISC was not associated with outcomes. At the surgeon level, associations were noted between ISC and complications, but these may be attributable to unmeasured differences in the postoperative management of patients. These findings suggest that quality improvement efforts to restructure resource use toward more cost-effective practice may not affect patient outcomes, although prospective monitoring of safety and effectiveness must be of the utmost concern.

Value in Single-level Lumbar Discectomy: Surgical Disposable Item Cost and Relationship to Patient-reported Outcomes

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

Compare improvements in health status measures (HSMs) and surgical costs to determine whether use of more costly items has any relationship to clinical outcome and value in lumbar disc surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Association between cost, outcomes, and value in spine surgery, including lumbar discectomy is poorly understood. Outcomes were calculated as difference in mean HSM scores between preoperative and postoperative timeframes. Prospective validated patient-reported HSMs studied were EuroQol quality of life index score (EQ-5D), Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Surgical costs consisted of disposable items and implants used in operating room.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified all adult patients at Cleveland Clinic main campus between October 2009 and August 2013 who underwent lumbar discectomy (652) using administrative billing data, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 63030. HSMs were obtained from Cleveland Clinic Knowledge Program Data Registry.

RESULTS

In total, 67% of operations performed in the outpatient or ambulatory setting, 33% in the inpatient setting. Among 9 surgeons who performed >10 lumbar discectomies, there were 72.4 operations per surgeon, on average. Mean surgical costs of each surgeon differed (P<0.0001). In a multivariable regression, only the surgeon and surgery type (outpatient or inpatient) were statistically correlated with surgical costs (P<0.0001 and 0.046, respectively). Changes in EQ-5D, PDQ, and PHQ-9 were not correlated with surgical costs (P=0.76, 0.07, 0.76, respectively). In multivariable regression, only surgical cost was significantly correlated to mean difference in PDQ (P=0.030). More costly surgeries resulted in worse PDQ outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean surgical costs varied statistically among 9 surgeons; costs were not shown to be positively correlated with patient outcomes. Performing an operation using more costly disposable supplies/implants does not seem to improve patient outcomes and should be considered when constructing preference cards and during an operation.

In Pursuit of the Most Cost-Effective Pediatric Laparoscopic Appendectomy: The Effect of Disposable Instrument Choice on Operative Time and Surgeon-Controllable Cost

BACKGROUND

There is a movement toward cost savings in healthcare worldwide. Surgeons can affect two main cost variables in an operation (controllable cost): disposables and time. Our hypothesis is that increasing disposable costs do not change outcome or operative time, but simply increases controllable cost.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients younger than the age of 18 years undergoing laparoscopic appendectomies for nonperforated appendicitis from January 2013 to November 2016. Data obtained included demographic information in addition to intraoperative details, including disposables used and associated cost, resident participation, operative time, and final pathology. Patients were excluded if perforation was present as confirmed by operative findings or pathology (Kansas City definition). Patients were also excluded if concurrent procedures were performed during the appendectomy.

RESULTS

We reviewed 918 patients and excluded 288 for a total of 690. Disposable cost, operative time, and complications were compared between cases with a resident present and those without. Residents did not increase the use of disposables, but did increase operative time and therefore the total controllable cost. Transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted technique was significantly faster with lower controllable cost when compared with all other methods. Using disposable trocars with an endostapler was the second fastest and second lowest controllable cost and retained a significant difference when compared with most other methods. Endoloop methods did not show overall controllable cost savings versus the vast majority of methods.

CONCLUSIONS

To maximize controllable cost savings, we recommend a transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy or a standard three-port laparoscopic appendectomy, with disposable trocars and the endostapler.

Intended cost reduction in laparoscopic appendectomy by introducing the endoloop: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Cost reduction measures in medicine are gaining greater importance nowadays, especially in high-volume procedures such as laparoscopic appendectomy (LAE). Currently there are two common methods of dissecting the appendix from the caecal pole: linear stapler and endoloops. The endoloop is the cheaper device but can only be used in uncomplicated cases of appendicitis. Therefore both methods are used in LAE depending on intraoperative findings. The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate possible cost reduction due to increased use of endoloop in LAE in our general surgery department of a tertiary referral university hospital.

METHODS

We previously used the stapler for appendix dissection in LAE as our local protocol but introduced the endoloop as standard method in 2015 to reduce intraoperative costs. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LAE between June 2014 and October 2015 in our department. Our purpose is to show the effects on cost reduction during the introductory period adjusting for a potential bias due to the individual learning curve of every surgeon. We estimated costs for LAE by taking into account average device costs and duration of operation (DO) as well as patient outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients underwent LAE, 73 in 2014 (phase I) and 104 in 2015 (phase II). The median DO was 61 (± 24 SD) min during the entire period, and increased by 14 min from phase I to II (from 51 (±23 SD) min to 65 (±24 SD) min respectively, p < 0.001). The use of endoloops increased from 10% to 55% (p < 0.001). Patients' characteristics and outcomes did not differ significantly. A median saving of 5.9€ per operation was calculated in phase II compared to phase I (p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Introducing the endoloop as standard device for LAE leads to a marginal reduction in intraoperative costs without increasing negative outcomes. In our model the cost-reduction achieved by cheaper devices was overcome by increased costs for DO during the initial phase of use of endoloops. A longer follow up might show a more pronounced cost reduction.

Variation and Predictors of Surgical Case Costs among Urologists

Introduction

Shifts in the health care delivery system have emphasized providing cost-efficient care. The operating room comprises a significant proportion of hospital costs. Analysis of practice variation in operating room supply use can provide insight into opportunities for cost reduction and improved efficiency without compromising outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of urological procedures performed at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center from September 2012 through December 2015. Supply costs for individual cases were itemized and aggregated using the institution negotiated rate. Operative time was monetized. Supply cost was analyzed with multivariate mixed effects models evaluating surgeon experience and surgeon volume.

Results

The majority of common urological procedures demonstrate significant variation among surgeons in supply, time and overall cost. Surgeon annual procedure specific volume was a significant predictor of lower cost in multivariate analysis of supply cost (p = 0.016) and correlated with a lower likelihood of the case supply cost being in the top quintile (p <0.001). Surgeon experience was not a significant predictor of absolute supply cost or being in the top quintile of supply cost.

Conclusions

Significant variation exists among supply costs of high volume procedures. Higher surgeon procedure specific volume predicts lower operating room supply costs. Targeting procedures with variation for cost optimization via standardization could have a substantial impact on operating room costs and efficiency. The experience of high volume surgeons may be useful to guide optimal supply use given their comparatively lower costs.

Resource Utilization in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Surgery: Is There Opportunity for Standardization?

INTRODUCTION

Recent healthcare reforms have raised the importance of cost and value in the management of disease. Value is a function of benefit and cost. Understanding variability in resources utilized by individual surgeons to achieve similar outcomes may provide an opportunity for cutting costs though greater standardization. The purpose of this study is to evaluate differences in use of implants and hospital resources among surgeons performing adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective AIS operative database was queried. Patients were matched for Lenke curve type and curve magnitude, resulting in 5 surgeons and 35 matched groups (N = 175). Mean patient age was 14.9 years and curve magnitude 50°. Parameters of interest were compared between surgeons via ANOVA and Bonferroni pairwise comparison.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in percentage curve correction or levels fused between surgeons. Significant differences between surgeons were found for percentage posterior approach, operative time, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), cell saver transfused, rod material, screw density, number of screws, use of antifibrinolytics, and cessation of intravenous analgesics. Despite differences in EBL and cell saver transfused, there were no differences in allogenic blood (blood bank) use.

CONCLUSION

Significant variability in resource utilization was noted between surgeons performing AIS operations, although radiographic results were uniform. Standardization of resource utilization and cost containment opportunities include implant usage, rod material, LOS, and transition to oral analgesics, as these factors are the largest contributors to cost in AIS surgery.

Cost analysis of iliac stenting performed in the operating room and the catheterization lab: A case-control study

BACKGROUND

Iliac arterial stenting is performed both in the operating room (OR) and the catheterization lab (CL). To date, no analysis has compared resource utilization between these locations.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (n = 105) treated at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients included adults with chronic, symptomatic iliac artery stenosis with a minimum Rutherford classification (RC) of 3, treated with stents. Exclusion criteria were prior stenting, acute ischemia, or major concomitant procedures. Immediate and two-year outcomes were observed. Patient demographics, perioperative details, physician billings, and hospital costs were recorded. Multivariable regression was used to adjust costs by patient and perioperative cost drivers.

RESULTS

Fifty-one procedures (49%) were performed in the OR and 54 (51%) in the CL. Mean age was 57, and 44% were female. Severe cases were more often performed in the OR (RC ≥ 4; 42% vs. 11%, P < 0.001) and were associated with increased total costs (P < 0.01). OR procedures more often utilized additional stents (stents ≥ 2; 61% vs. 46%, P = 0.214), thrombolysis (12% vs. 0%, P = 0.011), cut-down approach (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.052), and general anesthesia (80% vs. 0%, P < 0.001): these were all associated with increased costs (P < 0.05). After multivariable regression, location was not a predictor of procedure room or total costs but was associated with increased professional fees. Same-stay (5%) and post-discharge reintervention (33%) did not vary by location.

CONCLUSIONS

The OR was associated with increased length of stay, more ICU admissions, and increased total costs. However, OR patients had more severe disease and therefore often required more aggressive intervention. After controlling for these differences, procedure venue per se was not associated with increased costs, but OR cases incurred increased professional fees due to dual-provider charges. Given the similar clinical results between venues, it seems reasonable to perform most stenting in the CL or utilize conscious sedation in the OR.

Cost variation in a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the association with outcomes across a single health system: implications for standardization and improved resource utilization

BACKGROUND

Payers and regulatory bodies are increasingly placing emphasis on cost containment, quality/outcome measurement and transparent reporting. Significant cost variation occurs in many operative procedures without a clear relationship with outcomes. Clear cost-benefit associations will be necessary to justify expenditures in the era of bundled payment structures.

METHODS

All laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCCKs) performed within a single health system over a 1-year period were analysed for operating room (OR) supply cost. The cost was correlated with American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) outcomes.

RESULTS

From July 2013 to June 2014, 2178 LCCKs were performed by 55 surgeons at seven hospitals. The median case OR supply cost was $513 ± 156. There was variation in cost between individual surgeons and within an individual surgeon's practice. There was no correlation between cost and ACS NSQIP outcomes. The majority of cost variation was explained by selection of trocar and clip applier constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant case OR cost variation is present in LCCK across a single health system, and there is no clear association between increased cost and NSQIP outcomes. Placed within the larger context of overall cost, the opportunity exists for improved resource utilization with no obvious risk for a reduction in the quality of care.

A Model of Cost Reduction and Standardization: Improved Cost Savings While Maintaining the Quality of Care

BACKGROUND

Surgeon instrument choices are influenced by training, previous experience, and established preferences. This causes variability in the cost of common operations, such as laparoscopic appendectomy. Many surgeons are unaware of the impact that this has on healthcare spending.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to educate surgeons on their instrument use and develop standardized strategies for operating room cost reduction.

DESIGN

We collected the individual surgeon instrument cost for performing a laparoscopic appendectomy. Sixteen surgeons were educated about these costs and provided with cost-effective instruments and techniques.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in a university-affiliated hospital system.

PATIENTS

Patients included those undergoing a laparoscopic appendectomy within the hospital system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient demographics, operating room costs, and short-term outcomes for the fiscal year before and after the education program were then compared.

RESULTS

During fiscal year 2013, a total of 336 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed compared with 357 in 2014. Twelve surgeons had a ≥5% reduction in average cost per case. Overall, the average cost per case was reduced by 17% (p < 0.001). Switching from an energy device to a stapler load or reusable plastic clip applier resulted in the largest savings per case at $321 or $442 per case. There were no differences in length of stay, 30-day readmissions, postoperative infections, operating time, or reoperations.

LIMITATIONS

This retrospective study is subject to the accuracy of the medical chart system. In addition, specific instrument costs are based on our institution contracts and vary compared with other institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we demonstrate that operative instrument costs for laparoscopic appendectomy can be significantly reduced by informing the surgeons of their operating room costs compared with their peers and providing a low-cost standardized instrument tray. Importantly, this can be realized without any incentive or punitive measures and does not negatively impact outcomes. Additional work is needed to expand these results to more operations, hospital systems, and training programs.

Examining variation in cost based on surgeon choices for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard of care for treatment of benign biliary disease. Declining reimbursements and increasing medical costs require physicians to examine closely their choices for equipment to decrease overall costs, particularly looking at key steps of cholecystectomy. The objective of this study was to examine variations between surgeons in equipment and operating room costs for elective LC.

METHODS

Elective LC performed at IUH West Hospital in 2013 was analyzed. Patient demographics, preoperative diagnosis, operative time, surgical equipment, and resident participation were tracked. Exclusion criteria included acute cholecystitis and cases with additional procedures. Electronic medical records for clinical data and administrative records for reimbursement data were reviewed. Total supply costs and disposable costs for key portions of the LC were analyzed. Reimbursements were obtained from all payers for LC.

RESULTS

All LC were examined (n = 362) and 272 met inclusion criteria. Demographics and pathology were similar between surgeons. Operative time varied significantly (range 53-98 min) with the lowest cost surgeon taking the longest overall time. Times were significantly affected by resident participation. The total morbidity was 4 %, with no mortalities. Total supply costs by surgeon ranged from $412-$924. The most costeffective technique included the use of plastic locking clips and hook electrocautery. Hospital and surgeon reimbursements were $336-$11,554 and $669-$1500 respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights effects of surgeon choice as it relates to variable costs for surgical technique during elective LC without compromising safety. With healthcare reform emphasizing reduced healthcare expenditures, it is vital for surgeons to identify areas of unnecessary cost. Operating room time also contributes to cost, thus surgeons should implement techniques to complete procedures in a safe yet efficient fashion. Transparency by surgeons can lead to data that may support standardization of technique across a healthcare system to lower total supply costs.

Effect of hospital volume on outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: an observational study

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the effect of hospital volume on outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis.

METHODS

In total, 30,525 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis were referred to 825 hospitals in Japan from 2010 to 2012. We compared appendectomy-related complications, length of stay (LOS), and medical costs in relation to hospital volume. For this study period, hospitals were categorized as low-volume hospitals (LVHs, <50 cases), medium-volume hospitals (MVHs, 50-100 cases), or high-volume hospitals (HVHs, >100 cases).

RESULTS

Significant differences in appendectomy-related complications were observed among the LVHs, MVHs, and HVHs (6.9, 7.2, and 6.0 %, respectively; p = 0.001). Multiple logistic regression revealed that HVHs were associated with a lower relative risk of appendectomy-related complications than were LVHs and MVHs (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.95; p = 0.006). Multiple linear regression showed that HVHs were associated with shorter LOS and lower medical costs than were LVHs and MVHs. The unstandardized coefficient for LOS was -0.92 days (95 % CI, -1.07 to -0.78; p < 0.001), whereas that for medical costs was - $167.4 (95 % CI, -256.2 to -78.6; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital volume was significantly associated with laparoscopic appendectomy outcomes.

Educating surgeons on intraoperative disposable supply costs during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a regional health system's experience

BACKGROUND

Surgeons play a crucial role in the cost efficiency of the operating room through total operative time, use of supplies, and patient outcomes. This study aimed to examine the effect of surgeon education on disposable supply usage during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Surgeons were educated about the cost of disposable equipments without incentives for achieved cost reductions. Surgical supply costs for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in fiscal year (FY) 2013 were compared with FY 2014.

RESULTS

The average disposable supply cost per laparoscopic cholecystectomy was reduced from $589 (n = 586) in FY 2013 to $531 (n = 428) in FY 2014, representing a 10% reduction in supply costs (P < .001). Adjustments included reduction in the use of expensive fascial closure devices, clip appliers, suction irrigators, and specimen retrieval bags.

CONCLUSIONS

Disposable equipment cost for laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be reduced by surgeon education. These techniques can likely be used to reduce costs in an array of specialties and procedures.

Transvaginal endoscopic surgery for tubal ectopic pregnancy

Transvaginal endoscopic salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy appears to be feasible and safe and may result in less postoperative pain compared with a laparoscopic approach.

Objective:

To explore the feasibility, safety, efficacy, and cosmetic outcomes of transvaginal endoscopic salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy.

Methods:

From May 2009 to May 2012, we prospectively enrolled 40 patients, each of whom had been scheduled for a salpingectomy because of a tubal ectopic pregnancy, and randomized them into two groups: transvaginal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic approach. We recorded the estimated blood loss, time of anal exhaust, postoperative pain score, length of stay, and scar assessment scale associated with transvaginal endoscopic access (n = 18) (natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery) and laparoscopic salpingectomy (n = 20) (control group) for tubal ectopic pregnancy. The transvaginal salpingectomy was performed with a double-channel endoscope through a vaginal puncture. A single surgeon performed the surgical procedures in patients in both groups.

Results:

The group that underwent the transvaginal endoscopic procedure reported lesser pain at all postoperative visits than the group that underwent the laparoscopic approach. The duration of time for transvaginal endoscopic surgery was slightly longer than that for the laparoscopic approach. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the duration of operative time. The group that underwent transvaginal endoscopic surgery was more satisfied with the absence of an external scar than the group that underwent the laparoscopic procedure, which left a scar. The estimated blood loss, time of anal exhaust, and length of stay were the same in both groups.

Conclusion:

The safety and efficacy of transvaginal endoscopic salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy are equivalent to those of the laparoscopic procedure. Lesser postoperative pain and a more satisfactory cosmetic outcome were found with the transvaginal endoscopic procedure, making it the more preferred method and superior to the laparoscopic approach.

Reducing the Cost of Laparoscopy: Reusable versus Disposable Laparoscopic Instruments

Cost-effectiveness in health care management is critical. The situation in debt-stricken Greece is further aggravated by the financial crisis and constant National Health System expense cut-downs. In an effort to minimize the cost of laparoscopy, our department introduced reusable laparoscopic instruments in December 2011. The aim of this study was to assess potential cost reduction of laparoscopic operations in the field of general surgery. Hospital records, invoice lists, and operative notes between January 2012 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed and data were collected on laparoscopic procedures, instrument failures, and replacement needs. Initial acquisition cost of 5 basic instrument sets was €21,422. Over the following 24 months, they were used in 623 operations, with a total maintenance cost of €11,487. Based on an average retail price of €490 per set, projected cost with disposable instruments would amount to €305,270, creating savings of €272,361 over the two-year period under study. Despite the seemingly high purchase price, each set amortized its acquisition cost after only 9 procedures and instrument cost depreciated to less than €55 per case. Disposable instruments cost 9 times more than reusable ones, and their high price would almost equal the total hospital reimbursement by social security funds for many common laparoscopic procedures.

Acute appendicitis: position paper, WSES, 2013

Appendectomy is one of the most frequently performed operative procedures in general surgery departments of every size and category. Laparoscopic Appendectomy – LA - as compared to Open Appendectomy – OA - was very controversial at first but has found increasing acceptance all over the World, although the percentage of its acceptance is different in the various single National setting. Various meta-analyses and Cochrane reviews have compared LA with OA and different technical details. Furthermore, new surgical methods have recently emerged, namely, the single-port/incision laparoscopic appendectomy and NOTES technique. Their distribution among the hospitals, however, is unclear. Using laparoscopic mini-instruments with trocars of 2–3.5 mm diameter is proposed as a reliable alternative due to less postoperative pain and improved aesthetics. How to proceed in case of an inconspicuous appendix during a procedure planned as an appendectomy remains controversial despite existing study results. But the main question still is: operate or not operate an acute appendicitis, in the meaning of an attempt of a conservative antibiotic therapy. Therefore, we have done a literature survey on the performance of appendectomies and their technical details as well as the management of the intraoperative finding of an inconspicuous appendix in order to write down – under the light of the latest evidence – a position paper.

Analysis of endoloops and endostaples for closing the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE

An inadequate closure of the appendiceal stump can lead to intra-abdominal surgical site infections. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of different closure techniques by focusing on the intraoperative and postoperative complications versus cost.

METHODS

From June 2011 to June 2013, 333 patients from two different hospitals undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups based on the technique used for appendiceal stump closure: there were 104 patients in the stapler group and 229 in the loop group.

RESULTS

Among the 333 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, there were two (0.6%) intraoperative complications and 22 (6.6%) postoperative complications. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the intraoperative and postoperative complications. The length of the operation was 7 min shorter when the endoloop was used (p = 0.014). The mean costs of the operation were significantly lower when the loop was used (<euro> 554.93) compared to the stapler (<euro> 900.70) (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clinical evidence supporting the routine use of endoscopic staplers. The appendiceal stump can be secured safely with the use of endoloops in the majority of patients. Surgeons have to be more selective when choosing how to perform closure, and an endostapler should be used only in cases where it is clinically indicated.

Comparison of various methods of mesoappendix dissection in laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE

Although laparoscopic appendectomy is one of the most commonly performed operations, operation procedures vary widely according to the surgeon. In particular, various methods using different instruments have been used for mesoappendix dissection, such as endostapler, endoclip (EC), Harmonic(®) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) scalpel (HS), electrocautery, and LigaSure™ (Covidien, Mansfield, MA). Here we compared the results of mesoappendix dissection by EC, HS, and monopolar electrocautery (ME).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The study was performed on 1178 patients who received laparoscopic appendectomy at the Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Korea, from January 2003 to April 2013. Patients receiving mesoappendix dissection involving EC, HS, or ME were enrolled. Patient demographics, pathology of appendix, and perioperative data including operation time, hospital stay, and complications were analyzed. A theoretical model of disposable cost was constructed for each method to compare cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The average operation time for the 1178 patients was 58.0±24.9 minutes for the EC group, 51.4±25.5 minutes for the HS group, and 57.7±25.7 minutes for the ME group. The time for the HS group was significantly shorter. Hospital stay and complication rates did not differ. Disposable costs were 620,350 South Korean won (KRW) (571 U.S. dollars) for the EC group, 1,041,230 KRW (959 U.S. dollars) for the HS group, and 491,230 KRW (452 U.S. dollars) for the ME group.

CONCLUSIONS

The operation time of ME was similar to that of EC. Although HS had a significantly shorter operation time, the operation time of all three methods was under 60 minutes. All three methods had acceptable complication rates. ME was the most cost-effective method and, given the other similarities, can be recommended for mesoappendix dissection in laparoscopic appendectomy.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: quality care and cost-effectiveness for today's economy

BACKGROUND

Open appendectomy (OA) has traditionally been the treatment for acute appendicitis (AA). Beneficial effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for the treatment of AA are still controversial.

AIM

To present our technique for LA and to determine whether LA should be the technique of choice of any case of AA instead of OA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All cases operated for AA (February 2011 through February 2012) by means of LA or OA were prospectively evaluated. Data regarding length of stay, complications, emergency department consultation after discharge or readmission were collected. Patients were classified into four groups depending on the severity of the appendicitis. Economic data were obtained based on the cost of the disposable material. Cost of hospital stay was calculated based on the Ley de Tasas of the Generalitat Valenciana according to the DRG and the length of stay.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-two cases were included. Ninety-nine patients underwent OA and 43 LA. Average length of stay for LA group was 2,6 days and 3,8 for OA. Average cost of the stay for OA was 1.799 euros and 1.081 euros for LA. Global morbidity rate was 16%, 5% for LA and 20% for OA.

CONCLUSIONS

LA is nowadays the technique of choice for the treatment of AA.

Standardization of operative equipment reduces cost

BACKGROUND

We hypothesize that standardizing operative equipment, and reducing variability can safely achieve cost reduction.

METHODS

We retrospectively measured supply costs, operative time, intra-operative complications, and length of stay in a cohort of 145 patients at a children's hospital who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy. A standardized preference card for laparoscopic appendectomy was developed and implemented. Data were prospectively collected on 101 consecutive patients and compared to the retrospective cohort using multiple linear regression. A survey assessing the perception of surgeons, nurses and scrub technologists of the impact of standardization on patient safety, patient care, OR efficiency, and cost was conducted. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to evaluate associations between clinical role and years of experience with the total level of agreement on the survey.

RESULTS

A 20% average reduction was achieved in supply cost per case, with no significant change in operative time (p=0.14), total time in OR (p=0.15), or length of stay (p=0.60). No intra-operative complications were identified in either group. Survey participants agreed that standardization improves cost and safety. Nurses tended to have greater agreement that standardization improved efficiency and patient care compared to other roles (p=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Standardization of operative equipment can result in a significant cost reduction without impacting quality or delivery of care. Based on average case number per year, a total annual cost savings of >$41,000 could be realized. Survey participants agree that standardization improves cost and patient safety, yet perceptions regarding the impact on efficiency and patient care varied by occupation.

A pragmatic guide on how physicians can take over financial control of their clinical practice

Control of clinical cost is becoming increasingly important in health care worldwide. Physicians should accept the limitation of resources and take responsibility to improve their clinical cost-reimbursement ratio. To achieve this, they will need basic education in clinic management to control and adjust costs and reimbursement, without impacting professional quality of care. Rational use of diagnostics and therapy should be implemented and frequently verified. Physicians are the only professionals that are able to integrate economics with health care. This is in the best interest of patients and will improve a physician's position, influence, and professional freedom levels within our hospitals.

Appendectomy in Germany-an analysis of a nationwide survey 2011/2012

INTRODUCTION

Although appendectomies are frequently performed and new procedural techniques have emerged, no nationwide analysis exists after the cessation of the German quality control in 2004.

METHODS

One thousand eight hundred seventy surgical hospitals in Germany were asked to answer questions anonymously concerning the size of the department, applied procedural techniques, various technical details, as well as the approach to the intraoperative finding of an inconspicuous appendix.

RESULTS

We received 643 questionnaires (34.4 %) for evaluation. Almost all hospitals (95.5 %) offer laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), 15.4 % offer single-port (SPA), and 2.2 % (hybrid-) NOTES technique (NA). LA is the standard procedure in 85.2 % of male and in 89.1 % for female patients. In an open procedure (OA), the appendix and mesoappendix are mostly ligated (93.8 and 91.5 %). A Veress needle and open access are employed equally for LA. In 66.6 % of LA, the appendix is divided using an Endo-GIA, the mesoappendix in 45.5 % with bipolar coagulation. Almost half of the hospitals routinely flush the site in OA and LA. In open surgery with an inconspicuous appendix but a pathological finding elsewhere in the abdomen, it is resected "en principe" in 64.7 % and in the absence of any pathological finding in 91.2 %. For laparoscopic procedures, the numbers are 54.8 and 88.4 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Most German hospitals perform appendectomies laparoscopically regardless of patients' gender. Usage of an Endo-GIA is widely established. SPA has not gained much acceptance, nor is NA widely used yet. In the absence of any pathological findings in particular, the macroscopically inconspicuous appendix results in an appendectomy "en principe" in most German hospitals.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis in children

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy is one of the most common emergency operations performed in the pediatric population. The aim of this pooled analysis is to compare the outcome from complicated appendicitis (CA) and uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) following laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) in children.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Primary outcome measures were incidence of complications, intra-abdominal abscess, and wound infection. Secondary outcomes were length of operation, length of hospital stay, incidence of bowel obstruction, and readmission.

RESULTS

Seventy-three thousand one hundred fifty appendectomies for UA and 34,474 appendectomies for CA were included. For UA, the only significant difference between the groups was a reduced length of hospital stay following LA. LA in CA was associated with reduced complications (pooled odds ratio [POR] = 0.53; P < 0.05), wound infections (POR = 0.42; P < 0.05), length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.67; P < 0.05), and bowel obstruction episodes (POR = 0.8; P < 0.05), but an increased incidence of intra-abdominal abscess and length of operation.

CONCLUSION

Pooled analysis demonstrates that, in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, LA is associated with a reduced hospital stay but broad equivalence in postoperative morbidity when compared with the conventional approach. Although overall morbidity is reduced when the laparoscopic approach is utilized, in cases of CA, the risk of intra-abdominal abscess is increased.

Laparoscopic approach to acute abdomen from the Consensus Development Conference of the Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE), Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Chirurgia d'Urgenza e del Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana di Chirurgia nell'Ospedalità Privata (SICOP), and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

In January 2010, the SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery), under the auspices of the EAES, decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies in adults, with the primary intent being to update the 2006 EAES indications and supplement the existing guidelines on specific diseases.

METHODS

Other Italian surgical societies were invited into the Consensus to form a panel of 12 expert surgeons. In order to get a multidisciplinary panel, other stakeholders involved in abdominal emergencies were invited along with a patient's association. In November 2010, the panel met in Rome to discuss each chapter according to the Delphi method, producing key statements with a grade of recommendations followed by commentary to explain the rationale and the level of evidence behind the statements. Thereafter, the statements were presented to the Annual Congress of the EAES in June 2011.

RESULTS

A thorough literature review was necessary to assess whether the recommendations issued in 2006 are still current. In many cases new studies allowed us to better clarify some issues (such as for diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, pancreatitis, hernias, trauma), to confirm the key role of laparoscopy (such as for cholecystitis, gynecological disorders, nonspecific abdominal pain, appendicitis), but occasionally previous strong recommendations have to be challenged after review of recent research (such as for perforated peptic ulcer).

CONCLUSIONS

Every surgeon has to develop his or her own approach, taking into account the clinical situation, her/his proficiency (and the experience of the team) with the various techniques, and the specific organizational setting in which she/he is working. This guideline has been developed bearing in mind that every surgeon could use the data reported to support her/his judgment.