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

Development and assessment of a loop ligation simulator for laparoscopic appendectomy

OBJECTIVE

Loop ligation of the appendix is a challenging surgical skill and well suited to be trained in a simulator. We aimed to develop an affordable and easy-to-build simulator and test its training effect.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Different materials were tested, and the best training modality was identified by researching the literature. The developed simulator training was tested on 20 surgical novices.

RESULTS

A video was produced including an instruction on how to build the simulator and a step-by-step tuition on how to ligate the appendix. The Peyton approach was utilized to guide learners. Training with the simulator leads to reliable skill acquisition. All participants improved significantly in completing the task successfully during the structured learning.

CONCLUSION

We succeeded in developing a simulator for loop ligation of the appendix during laparoscopic appendectomy. Participants significantly improve in handling the loops. The transferability of the skill learned during simulation to the operating room will be subject of a follow-up study.

In Pursuit of the Most Cost-Effective Laparoscopic Appendicectomy: A Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

To review the literature and identify the most economical techniques for laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) that do not compromise on patient care.

METHODS

We performed a search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar for papers published between January 2001 and January 2021. The outcomes of the included studies were then grouped by theme of cost analysis, with the main areas of focus being the use of disposable equipment, appendiceal stump closure, and retrieval of the appendix.

RESULTS

After screening a total of 254 search results, 40 studies were included, representing 13 285 patient outcomes, having two main areas of focus: the use of reusable or disposable equipment and the different methods of appendiceal stump closure. Use of disposable instruments has been cost effective in LA in 2 studies. However, use of reusable trocars has reduced cost of procedure by €250 in another study. Appendiceal stump closure using ligature, endoloops or Endoclips had been cost-effective compared to Endostaplers in 25 studies. This can save up to €350. Endoscopic specimen bags are single use and represent further disposable equipment costs. The use of a sterile glove to replace this piece of kit can further provide cost benefit as shown in 2 studies.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendicectomy can be performed in a variety of ways with equivocal patient safety. We present the use of extracorporeal ligature of the appendiceal base, combined with the use of a surgical glove retrieval system as the most economic technique in laparoscopic appendicectomy.

Techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix resection: insights from the ESTES SnapAppy study

INTRODUCTION

Surgically managed appendicitis exhibits great heterogeneity in techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix amputation from its base. It is unclear whether a particular surgical technique provides outcome benefit or reduces complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We undertook a pre-specified subgroup analysis of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at index admission during SnapAppy (ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT04365491). We collected routine, anonymized observational data regarding surgical technique, patient demographics and indices of disease severity, without change to clinical care pathway or usual surgeon preference. Outcome measures of interest were the incidence of complications, unplanned reoperation, readmission, admission to the ICU, death, hospital length of stay, and procedure duration. We used Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to calculate incident rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Three-thousand seven hundred sixty-eight consecutive adult patients, included from 71 centers in 14 countries, were followed up from date of admission for 90 days. The mesoappendix was divided hemostatically using electrocautery in 1564(69.4%) and an energy device in 688(30.5%). The appendix was amputated by division of its base between looped ligatures in 1379(37.0%), with a stapler in 1421(38.1%) and between clips in 929(24.9%). The technique for securely dividing the appendix at its base in acutely inflamed (AAST Grade 1) appendicitis was equally divided between division between looped ligatures, clips and stapled transection. However, the technique used differed in complicated appendicitis (AAST Grade 2 +) compared with uncomplicated (Grade 1), with a shift toward transection of the appendix base by stapler (58% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). While no statistical difference in outcomes could be detected between different techniques for division of appendix base, decreased risk of any [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.41-0.82), p = 0.002] and severe [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.33 (0.11-0.96), p = 0.045] complications could be detected when using energy devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe mesoappendix transection and appendix resection are accomplished using heterogeneous techniques. Technique selection for both mesoappendix transection and appendix resection correlates with AAST grade. Higher grade led to more ultrasonic tissue transection and stapled appendix resection. Higher AAST appendicitis grade also correlated with infection-related complication occurrence. Despite the overall well-tolerated heterogeneity of approaches to acute appendicitis, increasing disease acuity or complexity appears to encourage homogeneity of intraoperative surgical technique toward advanced adjuncts.

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.

Purse-string suture after ligating by endoloop for closing of the appendiceal stump is an alternative for endostapler in selected cases: A propensity score-matched study

INTRODUCTION

The closure of the appendiceal stump is a crucial part of a laparoscopic appendectomy, and an endoloop or endostapler is generally used. The endoloop can be more cost effective than the endostapler. However, reports have shown that the endoloop has a higher postoperative abdominal abscess rate than the endostapler in complicated appendicitis. At our institution, we perform a purse-string suture after ligating by endoloop to reduce postoperative abdominal abscess risk. This study aimed to clarify whether this method could reduce the incidence of postoperative abdominal abscess compared with the endostapler.

METHODS

Patients with acute appendicitis were classified into the purse-string suture group (n = 149) and the endostapler group (n = 82). Postoperative outcomes were compared after propensity score matching (n = 47).

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the patient characteristics and postoperative complications, including abdominal abscess. However, the purse-string suture group had more drain placement and a shorter hospital stay than the endostapler group (P = .04 and P = .02, respectively). In patients with complicated appendicitis, there was less drain placement and a shorter hospital stay in the purse-string suture group than in the endostapler group (P < .01 and P < .01, respectively). This might have reflected the difficulty of the operation. All postoperative abdominal abscesses occurred in complicated appendicitis cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoloop with additional purse-string suture had a lower incidence of abscess than previous reports of using endoloop alone. Moreover, the postoperative abdominal abscess rate is similar between the two closure methods.

Endoloops in laparoscopic appendicectomy: A retrospective, cost effectiveness analysis

Background

Over 50,000 appendicectomies are performed in the UK annually. Despite this highvolume. status, and the endoloop being commonly employed, there is a scarcity of literature studying differences in outcomes depending on numbers used.The aim of this study was to investigate whether a significant difference in complication rate exists where different numbers of endoloop ligatures have been applied to the appendiceal base during laparoscopic appendicectomy, and to analyse for potential cost saving.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of appendicectomies at our centre in one year, providing a sample of 254 patients. Each was followed up for complications in the 30 days post discharge and graded using the Clavien-Dindo system. Our null hypothesis of no difference in complication rate was tested using Fisher's exact test.

Results

Of 254 patients, 59 were excluded due to open approach, non-endoloop method, or lack of available record, leaving a population of 195. The result of the two-tailed P value equalled 1.000, indicating no statistically significant difference in complication rate whether one or two endoloops were used. An endoloop costs £13.59. If the 62 cases in which 2 endoloops were used to secure the base had utilised a single endoloop, this would amount to a saving of £842.58.

Conclusion

Our study set out to assess whether the complication rate differs in cases where one or two endoloops have been applied. Retrospective statistical analysis found no significant difference between groups. Therefore, we recommend use of one endoloop to secure the base in laparoscopic appendicectomy.

Endostapler vs Endoloop closure of the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: Which has better outcomes?

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), closure of the appendiceal stump can be achieved using either an endostapler or endoloop. We compared outcome data from utilizing either technique.

METHOD

Data was collected for all adult patients who underwent LA for appendicitis at a single institution over a 4-year period. Demographic data, complications, length of stay and hospital charges were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 501 patients underwent LA in the 4-year period. There were no differences in age, gender or BMI. Additionally, there were no differences in procedure length, readmission rates, complication rates (including intra-abdominal abscess) or hospital charges. There was a slightly shorter length of stay in the endoloop closure group (1.22 days) vs endostapler (1.38 days), p = 0.002.

CONCLUSION

Neither technique of appendiceal stump closure demonstrated a unique advantage. These findings may have relevance in low resource environments that may not have routine access to surgical staplers.

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.