Is laparoscopic cholecystectomy cheaper?

Evidence-based medicine in daily surgical decision making: a survey-based comparison between the UK and Germany

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine (EbM) is a vital part of reasonable and conclusive decision making for clinicians in daily clinical work. To analyze the knowledge and the attitude of surgeons towards EbM, a survey was performed in the UK and Germany.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire was distributed via mailing lists from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Chirurgen (BDC). Our primary aim was to get information about knowledge of EbM amongst German and British surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 549 individuals opened the questionnaire, but only 198 questionnaires were complete and valid for analysis. In total, 40,000 recipients were approached via the mailing lists of the BDC and RCSE. The response rate was equally low in both countries. On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 10 (very important), all participants rated EbM as very important for daily clinical decision making (7.3 ± 1.9) as well as for patients (7.8 ± 1.9) and the national health system (7.8 ± 1.9). On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), systematic reviews (4.6 ± 0.6) and randomized controlled trials (4.6 ± 0.6) were identified as the highest levels of study designs to enhance evidence in medicine. British surgeons considered EbM to be more important in daily clinical work when compared to data from German surgeons (7.9 ± 1.6 vs. 6.7 ± 2.1, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed different results in some categories; however, a pattern to explain the differences was not evident. Personal requirements expressed in a free text field emphasized the results and reflected concerns such as broad unwillingness and lack of interdisciplinary approaches for patients (n = 59: 25 in the UK and 34 in Germany).

CONCLUSION

The overall results show that EbM is believed to be important by surgeons in the UK and Germany. However, perception of EbM in the respective health system (UK vs. Germany) may be different. Nonetheless, EbM is an important tool to navigate through daily clinical problems although a discrepancy between the knowledge of theoretical abstract terms and difficulties in implementing EbM in daily clinical work has been detected. The provision of infrastructure, courses and structured education as a permanent instrument will advance the knowledge, application and improvement of EbM in the future.

The effects of laparoscopic surgery and nosocomial infections on the cost of care: evidence from three common surgical procedures

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost of care for laparoscopic versus open surgery and the added cost of nosocomial infections for three common surgical procedures: cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, and appendectomy.

METHODS

The Cardinal Health database repository was utilized to extract reimbursement data for laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, and appendectomy surgical procedures. Utilizing a 22-hospital sample and a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant clinical data extraction technique, the Cardinal Health database repository produced a Nosocomial Infection Marker to identify and track nosocomial infection rates for these procedures. ICD-9 codes were utilized to identify 10,731 patients who had undergone these procedures between September 2004 and December 2006. Multivariable linear regression models were estimated to isolate the effects of laparoscopic versus open surgery and nosocomial infections on the cost of care.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces the overall cost of care for cholecystectomies, hysterectomies, and appendectomies. Controlling for the cost of nosocomial infection, incremental cost savings from laparoscopic versus open surgery for all three procedures average $1608. Cholecystectomy has the largest savings ($3299), followed by hysterectomy ($1385) and appendectomy ($1032). These cost savings in part reflect that patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures have shorter lengths of stay. In contrast, nosocomial infection increases costs substantially for each surgery type, raising costs for cholecystectomy by $4794, hysterectomy by $4528, and appendectomy by $6108.

CONCLUSION

The cost of care for laparoscopic surgery is lower than open surgery for cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, and appendectomy. This conclusion is based on actual hospital reimbursement data.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomised control trials

AIMS

To use meta-analytic techniques to compare peri-operative and short term post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing cholecystectomy via the laparoscopic or mini-open approach.

METHODS

Randomised control trials published between 1992 and 2005, cited in the literature of elective laparoscopic (LC) versus mini-open cholecystectomy (MoC) for symptomatic gallstone disease were included. End points evaluated were adverse events, operative and functional outcomes. A random effects meta-analytical model was used and between-study heterogeneity assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the difference in results for study size and quality and data reported from 2000.

RESULTS

Nine randomised studies of 2032 patients were included in the analysis. There was considerable variation in the size and type of incision used for MoC in the studies. There was a significantly longer operating time for the LC group, by 14.14 minutes (95% CI 2.08, 26.19; p < 0.0001). Length of stay was reduced in the LC group by 0.37 days (95% CI -0.53, -0.21; p < 0.0001), with no significant heterogeneity for either outcome. For all other operative and post-operative outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

MoC appeared to have similar outcomes compared to LC, however LC did reduce the length of hospital stay. MoC is a viable and safe option for healthcare providers without the financial resources for laparoscopic equipment and appropriately trained surgical teams.

Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Gangrenous Cholecystitis

Treatment of severe acute cholecystitis by laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains controversial because of technical difficulties and high rates of complications and conversion to open cholecystectomy. We investigated whether early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is appropriate for acute gangrenous cholecystitis. Pathologic diagnoses and outcomes were analyzed in patients who underwent laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy at our hospital, January 2002 to September 2005. Of 30 patients with acute gangrenous cholecystitis, 16 underwent early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 10 underwent open cholecystectomy, and 4 were converted to open cholecystectomy (conversion rate, 20.0%). There was no significant difference in operation time or intraoperative bleeding. The requirement for postoperative analgesics was significantly lower (6.4+/-7.3 vs. 1.5+/-1.2 doses, P<0.05) and hospital stay significantly shorter (8.6+/-2.1 vs. 15.6+/-6.3 d, P<0.01) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were no postoperative complications in either group. Thus, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems appropriate for acute gangrenous cholecystitis. Conversion to open cholecystectomy may be required in difficult cases with complications.