Impact of staged InterStim implantation on the postoperative activities of daily living and pain.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short-term effects of staged InterStim implantation on activities of daily living (ADL) and pain. METHODS: This prospective study assessed women undergoing staged InterStim implantation. The Older Americans Resources and Services Program Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire asked participants about their ability to complete activities without help or what help they needed following stage I lead placement and stage II neurostimulator implantation. Narcotic use and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were recorded daily. RESULTS: Thirty-eight women underwent stage I with 33 (86.8%) progressing to stage II. On stage I postoperative day (POD) 2, more women required help shopping compared with baseline (40 vs 17%, p < 0.004). The median pain score increased on Stage I POD1 (P < 0.001) and the use of narcotics increased on POD1 and 2 compared with baseline (50% vs 14%, p = 0.001). The same trends were seen following stage II. CONCLUSIONS: Staged InterStim implantation has minimal impact on ADL, pain or narcotic requirements.

Do urodynamic parameters predict persistent postoperative stress incontinence after midurethral sling? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: It is unclear whether preoperative urodynamic study (UDS) values are predictive of outcomes after midurethral sling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically reviewed multiple databases from January 1989 to October 2011 for English-language studies correlating UDS data with postoperative outcomes after midurethral slings. We performed random effects model meta-analyses, as indicated. Relative risk (RR) ratios for the outcome of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) cure were calculated using high maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) and Valsalva leak point pressure (VLPP) values as the reference group. RESULTS: High preoperative MUCP was associated with cure after retropubic [RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97)] and transobturator slings (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.90). High preoperative VLPP was also associated with cure after retropubic sling (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96), but this relationship did not achieve statistical significance for cure after transobturator sling (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MUCP and VLPP values may add insight into postoperative outcomes after surgical treatment for SUI.

Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomies.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-minimization analysis of abdominal, traditional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted myomectomy. DESIGN: Cost analysis (Canadian Task Force Classification III). SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Women undergoing myomectomy by various surgical approaches. INTERVENTIONS: We developed a decision model to compare the costs ($2009) of different approaches to myomectomy from a healthcare system perspective. The model included operative time, conversion risk, transfusion risk, and length of stay (LOS) for each modality. Baseline estimates and ranges were based on reported values extracted from existing literature. We analyzed two different models: #1) Existing Robot model and #2) Robot Purchase model. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the baseline analysis for the Existing Robot model, abdominal myomectomy (AM) was the least expensive at $4937 compared with laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) at $6219 and robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RM) at $7299. The abdominal route remained the least expensive when varying all parameters and costs except for two cases in which LM became least expensive: 1) If AM length of stay was greater than 4.6 days, and 2) If the surgeon's fee for AM was greater than $2410. When comparing LM to RM, the cost of RM was consistently higher unless the robotic disposable equipment costs were less than $1400. In the Robot Purchase model, only the RM costs increased while AM and LM costs remained the same. CONCLUSION: In this cost-minimization analysis, abdominal myomectomy is the least expensive approach when compared to laparoscopy and robotic-assisted laparoscopy.

Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To use decision modeling to compare the costs associated with robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. METHODS: Three separate models were used, each with sensitivity analysis: 1) a societal perspective model, which included inpatient hospital costs, robotic expenses, and lost wages and caregiver costs; 2) a hospital perspective plus robot costs model, which was identical to the societal perspective model but excluded lost wages and caregiver costs; and 3) a hospital perspective without robot costs model, which was identical to the hospital perspective plus robot costs model except that it excluded initial cost of the robot. RESULTS: The societal perspective model predicted laparoscopy ($10,128) as the least expensive approach followed by robotic and ($11,476) and open hysterectomy ($12,847). Societal perspective model sensitivity analyses predicted robotic hysterectomy to be least expensive when robotic disposable equipment cost less than $1,046 per case (baseline cost $2,394). In the hospital perspective plus robot costs model, laparoscopy was least expensive ($6,581) followed by open ($7,009) and robotic hysterectomy ($8,770); however, if hospital stay after open surgery was less than 2.9 days, open hysterectomy was least expensive. In the hospital perspective without robot costs model, laparoscopy remained least expensive, but robotic surgery became least expensive if the cost of robotic disposable equipment was reduced to less than $1,496 per case. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy is the least expensive surgical approach for the treatment of endometrial cancer. Robotic is less costly than abdominal hysterectomy when the societal costs associated with recovery time are accounted for and is most economically attractive if disposable equipment costs can be minimized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-minimization analysis comparing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. DESIGN: Cost-minimization analysis using a micro-costing approach (Canadian Task Force classification III). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A decision model was developed to compare the costs (2008 US dollars) of robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Our model included operative time, risk of conversion, risk of transfusion, and length of stay (LOS) for each method. Respective baseline estimates for robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures included operative time (328, 269, and 170 minutes), conversion (1.4%, 1.8%, and 0%), transfusion (1.4%, 1.8%, 3.8%), and LOS (1.0, 1.8, and 2.7 days). Two models were used, the Robot Existing model, that is, current hospital ownership of a robotic system, and the Robot Purchase model, that is, initial hospital purchase of a robotic system, with purchase and maintenance costs amortized and distributed across robotic procedures. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of varying each parameter through its range. For the Robot Existing robot model, robotic sacrocolpopexy was the most expensive, $8508 per procedure compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at $7353 and abdominal sacrocolpopexy at $5792. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy became cost-equivalent only when robotic operative time was reduced to 149 minutes, robotic disposables costs were reduced to $2132, or laparoscopic disposable costs were increased to $3413. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy became cost-equivalent only when laparoscopic disposable costs were reduced to $668, mean LOS for abdominal sacrocolpopexy was increased to 5.6 days, or surgeon reimbursement for abdominal sacrocolpopexy exceeded $2213. The addition of robotic purchase and maintenance costs resulted in an incremental increase of $581, $865, and $1724 per procedure when these costs were distributed over 60, 40, and 20 procedures per month, respectively. CONCLUSION: Robotic sacrocolpopexy was more expensive compared with the laparoscopic or abdominal routes under the baseline assumptions.

Postoperative readmissions following laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy: a comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the readmission rates for total laparoscopic and total abdominal hysterectomy, as well as identify preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative risk factors for readmission within 6 weeks of surgery. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was performed using a departmental database to identify all readmissions following total laparoscopic and total abdominal hysterectomy and to assemble a control group. For each patient, the following data were systematically collected: surgery date, age, parity, body mass index, indications for surgery, type of procedure performed, uterine size, number of prior cesarean sections, number of prior laparoscopic abdominal surgeries, number of prior open abdominal surgeries, presence of adhesions at time of hysterectomy, diabetic status, operative time, postoperative hematocrit, intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgeon, use of postoperative antibiotics, postoperative day readmitted, reason for readmission, length of readmission, and whether the patient returned to the operating room during the readmission. RESULTS: From January 1, 2000 to April 1, 2007, 1,576 total abdominal and 1,198 total laparoscopic hysterectomies were performed at Ochsner Medical Center. Of these, 19 abdominal and 31 laparoscopic hysterectomy patients were readmitted within 6 weeks of surgery. Our control groups consisted of 84 laparoscopic and 53 abdominal hysterectomy patients. A statistically significant difference in readmission rates (1.2% following abdominal hysterectomy vs. 2.7% following laparoscopic hysterectomy) was identified. No correlation between readmission and operative time, adhesive disease, diabetic status, prior cesarean sections, prior open or laparoscopic procedures, postoperative antibiotic use or postoperative hematocrit could be identified. Compared to those undergoing abdominal hysterectomy, those undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy had more readmissions due to cuff dehiscence and cuff cellulitis for (p  =  0.0146), which is a previously recognized complication of total laparoscopic hysterectomy. We were unable to identify any significant difference in postoperative day of readmission, length of readmission, or return to operating room. CONCLUSION: Further investigation would benefit from an expanded study group, which may result in identification of some significance of the studied factors that were not able to be identified in this study.