Outcomes and impact of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus open inguinal hernia repair on healthcare spending and employee absenteeism.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the impact of open (OIHR) versus laparoscopic (LIHR) inguinal hernia repair on healthcare spending and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: The TRUVEN database was queried using ICD9 procedure codes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted IHR, from 2012 to 2013. Patients > 18 years of age and continuously enrolled for 12 months postoperatively were included. Demographics, patient comorbidities, postoperative complications, pain medication use, length of hospital stay, missed work hours, postoperative visits, and overall expenditure were collected, and assessed at time of surgery and at 30-, 60-, 90-, 180-, and 365-days postoperatively. Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS, with α = 0.05. RESULTS: 66,116 patients were included (LIHR: N = 23,010; OIHR: N = 43,106). Robotic-assisted procedures were excluded due to small sample size (N = 61). The largest demographic was males between 55 and 64 years. LIHR had fewer surgical wound complications than OIHR (LIHR: 0.3%; OIHR: 0.5%, p = 0.007), less utilization of pain medication (LIHR: 23.3%; OIHR: 28.5%; p < 0.001), and fewer outpatient visits. In the 90-day postoperative period, LIHR had significantly fewer missed work hours (LIHR: 12.1 ± 23.2 h; OIHR: 12.9 ± 26.7 h, p = 0.023). LIHR had higher postoperative urinary complications (LIHR: 0.2%; OIHR: 0.1%; p < 0.001), consistent with the current literature. LIHR expenditures ($15,030 ± $25,906) were higher than OIHR ($13,303 ± 32,014), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the benefits of laparoscopic repair with regard to surgical wound complications, postoperative pain, outpatient visits, and missed work hours. These improved outcomes with respect to overall healthcare spending and employee absenteeism support the paradigm shift toward laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs, in spite of higher overall expenditures.

Thirty-day readmissions after inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: factors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: 30-day readmissions are a considerable financial burden on medical institutions due to penalties faced from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare. METHODS: A retrospective review of 30-day readmissions was performed. The data were subdivided into medical severity-diagnostic related groups 417, 418, and 419, as categorized by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare. Perioperative variables, diagnostic workup, operative interventions, and postoperative morbidity and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-four (5.9%) readmissions were recorded, of 747 inpatient discharges. The data were further divided into DRGs 417, 418, and 419 with readmission rates of 13.6, 3.6%, and 5.4%, respectively. The highest rate of readmission was within the first 7 days. Etiology was divided into surgical (54.5%) and nonsurgical (45.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with major comorbidities had a higher rate of readmission (P < .05). In 45.4% of the readmissions, the cause was found to be nonsurgical. The surgical team was not consulted in 31.8% of the readmissions.

Percutaneous drainage of a diverticular abscess should be limited to two attempts for a resilient diverticular abscess.

Management of a resilient diverticular abscess poses a big challenge. Currently there are no guidelines for the number of percutaneous drainages to be performed in resilient diverticular abscesses before attempting surgery. All patients (n = 117) who presented with a computed tomography scan-proven diverticular abscess from July 2008 to June 2011 were studied. They were divided into four groups based on the number of percutaneous drainages they underwent for their diverticular abscess: six patients underwent three or more drainages, nine patients underwent two drainages, 27 patients had one drainage, and 75 patients had no drainage. Readjustment, flushing, and upgrading size of the drain were not considered as separate drainage procedures. The size of abscess cavity was significantly higher for the patients who had three or more drainages (mean 8 cm, P < 0.001). A Hartmann's procedure was performed in the majority of patients in the three or more drainage group (83%) but in decreasing frequency as the number of drainages performed dropped: two drainage group (44%), one drainage group (15%), and no drainage group (19%). There was a significantly higher preoperative hospital stay for drainage and antibiotics in the patients from the three or more drainage group (P < 0.001). Patients with a resilient diverticular abscess are very likely to undergo a Hartmann's procedure after two attempted drainages. By performing additional percutaneous drainages in an attempt to avoid ostomy, patients are at an increased risk of sepsis and peritonitis with prolonged antibiotics and increased healthcare costs. We recommend limiting percutaneous drainage procedures to two attempts to cool down a resilient diverticular abscess before definitive surgery.

Colonoscopic perforation management by laparoendoscopy: an algorithm.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role of laparoscopy in the management of iatrogenic colonoscopic injuries has increased with surgeons becoming facile with minimally invasive methods. However, with a limited number of reported cases of successful laparoscopic repair, the exact role of this modality is still being defined. Drawing from previous literature and our own experiences, we have formulated a simple algorithm that has helped us treat colonoscopic perforations. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of patients treated for colonoscopic perforations since the algorithm's introduction. For each patient, initial clinical assessment, management, and postoperative recovery were carefully documented. A Medline search was performed, incorporating the following search words: colonoscopy, perforation, and laparoscopy. Twenty-three articles involving 106 patients were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and August 2012, 7 consecutive patients with colonoscopic perforations were managed by 2 surgeons using the algorithm. There were no complications and no deaths, with a mean length of stay of 4.43 days (range, 2-7 days). Of the 7 patients, 6 required surgery. A single patient was managed conservatively and later underwent an elective colon resection. CONCLUSIONS: Traditionally, laparotomy was the preferred method for treating colonoscopic perforations. Our initial experience reinforces previous views that laparoendoscopic surgery is a safe and effective alternative to traditional surgery for managing this complication. We have formulated a simple algorithm that we have found helpful for surgeons considering a laparoscopic approach to managing this condition.