LAPAROSCOPIC AND LAPAROTOMY BARIATRIC SURGERY IN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL: ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS AND COMPLICATIONS?

BACKGROUND: Despite its increasing popularity, laparoscopy is not the option for bariatric surgeries performed in the Brazilian public health system. AIMS: To compare laparotomy and laparoscopic access in bariatric surgery, considering aspects such as morbidity, mortality, costs, and length of stay. METHODS: The study included 80 patients who were randomly assigned to perform a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. They were equally divided in two groups, laparoscopic and laparotomy. The results obtained in the postoperative period were evaluated and compared according to the Ministry of Health protocol, and later, in their outpatient returns. RESULTS: The surgical time was similar in both groups (p=0.240). The costs of laparoscopic surgery proved to be higher, mainly due to staplers and staples. The patients included in the laparotomy group presented higher rates of severe complications, such as incisional hernia (p<0.001). Costs related to social security and management of postoperative complications were higher in the open surgery group (R$ 1,876.00 vs R$ 34,268.91). CONCLUSIONS: The costs related to social security and treatment of complications were substantially lower in laparoscopic access when compared to laparotomy. However, considering the operative procedure itself, the laparotomy remained cheaper. Finally, the length of stay, the rate of complications, and return to labor had more favorable results in the laparoscopic route.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Medical Therapy, Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Gastric Bypass in Patients With Severe Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Bariatric surgery is recommended for patients with severe obesity (body mass index ≥40) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the most cost-effective treatment remains unclear and may depend on the patient's T2D severity. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of medical therapy, sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) among patients with severe obesity and T2D, stratified by T2D severity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to project health and cost outcomes of medical therapy, SG, and RYGB over 5 years. Time horizons varied between 10 and 30 years in sensitivity analyses. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials, large cohort studies, national databases, and published literature. Probabilistic sampling of model inputs accounted for parameter uncertainty. Estimates of US adults with severe obesity and T2D were derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to August 2021. Exposures: Medical therapy, SG, and RYGB. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2020 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were projected, with future cost and QALYs discounted 3.0% annually. A strategy was deemed cost-effective if the ICER was less than $100 000 per QALY. The preferred strategy resulted in the greatest number of QALYs gained while being cost-effective. Results: The model simulated 1000 cohorts of 10 000 patients, of whom 16% had mild T2D, 56% had moderate T2D, and 28% had severe T2D at baseline. The mean age of simulated patients was 54.6 years (95% CI, 54.2-55.0 years), 61.6% (95% CI, 60.1%-63.4%) were female, and 65.1% (95% CI, 63.6%-66.7%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with medical therapy over 5 years, RYGB was associated with the most QALYs gained in the overall population (mean, 0.44 QALY; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86 QALY) and when stratified by baseline T2D severity: mild (mean, 0.59 QALY; 95% CI, 0.35-0.98 QALY), moderate (mean, 0.50 QALY; 95% CI, 0.25-0.88 QALY), and severe (mean, 0.30 QALY; 95% CI, 0.07-0.79 QALY). RYGB was the preferred strategy in the overall population (ICER, $46 877 per QALY; 83.0% probability preferred) and when stratified by baseline T2D severity: mild (ICER, $36 479 per QALY; 73.7% probability preferred), moderate (ICER, $37 056 per QALY; 85.6% probability preferred), and severe (ICER, $98 940 per QALY; 40.2% probability preferred). The cost-effectiveness of RYGB improved over a longer time horizon. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery vary by baseline severity of T2D. Over a 5-year time horizon, RYGB is projected to be the preferred treatment strategy for patients with severe obesity regardless of baseline T2D severity.

Comparison of 4-Year Health Care Expenditures Associated With Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Sleeve Gastrectomy.

Importance: Data on the long-term health care expenditures associated with bariatric surgery consisting of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy are lacking. Objective: To compare 4-year health care expenditures after RYGB vs sleeve gastrectomy, identify factors independently associated with 4-year health care expenditures, and compare the procedures in terms of subsequent hospitalizations, bariatric procedures, and all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this propensity score-matched cohort study, all residents of Ontario, Canada, who underwent publicly funded surgery with RYGB (n = 6301) or sleeve gastrectomy (n = 926) from March 1, 2010, to March 31, 2015, and consented to participate in the Ontario Bariatric Registry were eligible for the study. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2019, and data were analyzed from May 5, 2020, to May 20, 2021. Interventions: RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Publicly funded health care expenditures, subsequent hospitalizations, bariatric procedures, and mortality during the 4 years after RYGB or sleeve gastrectomy. Results: The 1:1 matched study cohorts consisted of 1624 patients (812 per cohort) with a mean (SD) age of 48.0 (10.6) years, and 1242 women (76.5%). The mean body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in square meters) was 51.9 (8.3) for the RYGB cohort and 51.9 (8.9) for the sleeve gastrectomy cohort. The 4-year cumulative costs were not statistically significantly different between RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy (mean [SD], $33 682 [$31 169] vs $33 948 [$32 633], respectively; P = .86). Having a history of coronary artery disease was associated with a 35% increase in overall health care expenditures; chronic kidney disease, a 54% increase; and mental health admissions, a 67% increase. There were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality between RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy (1.5% vs 2.2%, respectively; P = .26) or the total number of hospitalizations (754 vs 669, respectively; P = .11) during the 4-year follow-up period. However, nonelective hospitalizations occurred more frequently with RYGB vs sleeve gastrectomy (472 vs 339, respectively; P = .002). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was associated with relatively fewer subsequent bariatric procedures during the 4-year follow-up period (9 vs 40, respectively; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this Canadian population-based study, key results indicated that 4-year health care expenditures, all-cause mortality, and number of hospital admissions associated with RYGB did not significantly differ from those for sleeve gastrectomy. The rate of subsequent bariatric surgery was lower with RYGB. This study identified important patient-level drivers of health care expenditures that need to be further investigated.

Bariatric surgery for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring insulin: Clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analyses.

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is well established as an effective treatment for patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), there exists reluctance to increase its availability for patients with severe T2DM. The aims of this study were to examine the impact of bariatric surgery on T2DM resolution in patients with obesity and T2DM requiring insulin (T2DM-Ins) using data from a national database and to develop a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgery in this cohort when compared to best medical treatment (BMT). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Clinical data from the National Bariatric Surgical Registry (NBSR), a comprehensive database of bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom, were extracted to analyse outcomes of patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins who underwent primary bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2017. Outcomes for this group were combined with data sourced from a comprehensive literature review in order to develop a state-transition microsimulation model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery versus BMT for patients over a 5-year time horizon. The main outcome measure for the clinical study was insulin cessation at 1-year post-surgery: relative risks (RR) summarising predictive factors were determined, unadjusted, and after adjusting for variables including age, initial body mass index (BMI), duration of T2DM, and weight loss. Main outcome measures for the economic evaluation were total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP£20,000. A total of 2,484 patients were eligible for inclusion, of which 1,847 had 1-year follow-up data (mean age of 51 years, mean initial BMI 47.2 kg/m2, and 64% female). 67% of patients no longer required insulin at 1-year postoperatively: these rates persisted for 4 years. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was associated with a higher rate of insulin cessation (71.7%) than sleeve gastrectomy (SG; 64.5%; RR 0.92, confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.99) and adjustable gastric band (AGB; 33.6%; RR 0.45, CI 0.34-0.60; p < 0.001). When adjusted for percentage total weight loss and demographic variables, insulin cessation following surgery was comparable for RYGB and SG (RR 0.97, CI 0.90-1.04), with AGB having the lowest cessation rates (RR 0.55, CI 0.40-0.74; p < 0.001). Over 5 years, bariatric surgery was cost saving compared to BMT (total cost GBP£22,057 versus GBP£26,286 respectively, incremental difference GBP£4,229). This was due to lower treatment costs as well as reduced diabetes-related complications costs and increased health benefits. Limitations of this study include loss to follow-up of patients within the NBSR dataset and that the time horizon for the economic analysis is limited to 5 years. In addition, the study reflects current medical and surgical treatment regimens for this cohort of patients, which may change. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that in patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins, bariatric surgery was associated with high rates of postoperative cessation of insulin therapy, which is, in turn, a major driver of overall reductions in direct healthcare cost. Our findings suggest that a strategy utilising bariatric surgery for patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins is cost saving to the national healthcare provider (National Health Service (NHS)) over a 5-year time horizon.

Association of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass With Postoperative Health Care Use and Expenditures in Canada.

Importance: Results of previous studies are mixed regarding the economic implications of a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Objective: To assess the 5-year incremental health care use and expenditures after RYGB. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada, used a difference-in-differences approach to compare health care use and expenditures between patients who underwent a publicly funded RYGB from March 1, 2010, to March 31, 2013, and propensity score-matched control individuals who did not undergo a surgical bariatric procedure. The study period allowed for a minimum 60 months of follow-up because, at that time, the most recent date for which administrative data on health care and expenditures were available was March 31, 2018. Data sources included the Ontario Bariatric Registry linked to several Ontario health administrative databases and the Electronic Medical Record Administrative Data Linked Database. Health care use and expenditures data for 5 years before and 5 years after the index date (procedure date for RYGB group; random date for controls) were analyzed. Data analyses were performed March 12, 2019, to March 10, 2020. Intervention: RYGB procedure. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was total health care expenditures. Results: The final propensity score-matched cohorts comprised 1587 individuals in the RYGB group (mean [SD] age, 47 [10.2] years) and 1587 controls (mean [SD] age, 47 [12.2] years); each group had 1228 women (77.4%) and a mean body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 46. Mean total health care expenditures (2017 Canadian dollars) per patient in the RYGB group increased from CAD $15 594 (95% CI, CAD $14 743 to CAD $16 614) (US $12 008 [95% CI, US $11 353 to US $12 794]) in the 5 years before the procedure to CAD $30 389 (95% CI, CAD $28 789 to CAD $32 232) (US $23 401 [95% CI, US $22 169 to US $24 821]) over the 5 years after the procedure, a difference of CAD $14 795 (95% CI, CAD $13 172 to CAD $16 480) (US $11 393 [95% CI, US $10 143 to US $12 691]). For the control group, mean total health care expenditures per individual increased from CAD $16 109 (95% CI, CAD $14 727 to CAD $17 591) (US $12 405 [95% CI, US $11 341 to US $13 546]) 5 years before the index date to CAD $20 073 (95% CI, CAD $18 147 to CAD $22 169) (US $15 457 [95% CI, US $13 974 to US $17 071]) 5 years after the date, a difference of CAD $3964 (95% CI, CAD $2250 to CAD $5875) (US $3053 [95% CI, US $1733 to US $4524]). Overall, the difference-in-differences estimate of the net cost of RYGB was CAD $10 831 (95% CI, CAD $8252 to CAD $13 283) (US $8341 [95% CI, $6355 to $10 229]) over the 5-year period. This amount excluded the mean (SD) cost associated with the index date: CAD $6501 (CAD $1087) (US $5006 [US $837]) for the RYGB cohort and CAD $9 (CAD $72) (US $7 [US $55]) for the controls. The cost differential was primarily associated with increased hospitalizations in the first months immediately after RYGB. Expenditures leveled off in year 3 after the index date; differences in total expenditures between the RYGB and control cohorts were not statistically significantly different in years 4 and 5. Conclusions and Relevance: Health care expenditures in the 3 years after publicly funded RYGB were higher in patients who underwent the procedure than in control individuals, but the costs were similar thereafter. This finding suggests the need to decrease hospital and emergency department readmissions after surgical bariatric procedures because such use is associated with increased spending.

Economic evaluation of surgical treatment of obesity. / Evaluación económica del tratamiento quirúrgico de la obesidad.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity surgery is the best treatment for extreme obesity, with demonstrated long-term positive outcomes. The potential cost-savings generated by the improvement of comorbidities after surgery can justify the allocation of more resources in the surgical treatment of obesity. METHODS: This was an observational, descriptive, longitudinal and retrospective study. Eligible patients underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery at the Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias between 2003 and 2012. The established minimum follow-up period was two years. We calculated the individualized cost per patient treated (bottom-up) as well as per Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) codes (top-down). RESULTS: Our study included 307 patients. The average cost per hospitalization calculated by DRG codes was €6,545.90, and the average cost per patient was €10,572.20. DRG 288 represented 91% of the series, with a value of €4,631. The number of medications also decreased during this period, from 2.86 to 0.78 per medically treated patient, representing a cost reduction of €4,433 per patient with all the obesity-related comorbidities analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Two years after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conducted at Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, the savings in drug costs for patients with multiple pathologies would compensate the inherent costs of the surgical treatment itself. Our results showed that DRG-related costs was insufficient to make a correct economic evaluation, so we recommend an individualized cost calculating method.

Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is managed with palliative surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting. Limited data exist on differences in cost and outcomes. METHODS: Patients with malignant GOO undergoing palliative gastrojejunostomy (GJ) or endoscopic stent (ES) were identified between 2012 and 2015 using the MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index procedure and 90-day readmissions and re-intervention were calculated. Frequency of treatment failure-defined as repeat surgery, stenting, or gastrostomy tube-was measured. RESULTS: A total of 327 patients were included: 193 underwent GJ and 134 underwent ES. Compared to GJ, stenting resulted in lower total median payments for the index hospitalization and procedure-related 90-day readmissions ($18,500 ES vs. $37,200 GJ, p = 0.032). For patients treated with ES, 25 (19%) required a re-intervention for treatment-failure, compared to 18 (9%) patients who underwent GJ (p = 0.010). On multivariable analysis, stenting remained significantly associated with need for secondary re-intervention compared to GJ (HR for ES 2.0 [1.1-3.8], p 0.028). CONCLUSION: In patients with malignant GOO, endoscopic stenting results in significant 90-day cost saving, however was associated with twice the rate of secondary intervention. The decision for surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting should consider patient prognosis, anticipated cost, and likelihood of needing re-intervention.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Surgical Management of Infants Less than One Year of Age with Feeding Difficulties.

BACKGROUND: We compared the cost-effectiveness of the common surgical strategies for the management of infants with feeding difficulty. METHODS: Infants with feeding difficulty undergoing gastrostomy alone (GT), GT and fundoplication, or gastrojejunostomy (GJ) tube were enrolled between 2/2017 and 2/2018. A validated GERD symptom severity questionnaire (GSQ) and visual analog scale (VAS) to assess quality of life (QOL) were administered at baseline, 1 month, and every 6 months. Data collected included demographics, resource utilization, diagnostic studies, and costs. VAS scores were converted to quality adjusted life months (QALMs), and costs per QALM were compared using a decision tree model. RESULTS: Fifty patients initially had a GT alone (71% laparoscopically), and one had a primary GJ. Median age was 4 months (IQR 3-8 months). Median follow-up was 11 months (IQR 5-13 months). Forty-three did well with GT alone. Six (12%) required conversion from GT to GJ tube, and one required a fundoplication. Of those with GT alone, six (14%) improved significantly so that their GT was removed after a mean of 7 ±â€¯3 months. Overall, the median GSQ score improved from 173 at baseline to 18 after 1 year (p < 0.001). VAS scores also improved from 70/100 at baseline to 85/100 at 1 year (p < 0.001). ED visits (59%), readmissions (47%), and clinic visits (88%) cost $58,091, $1,442,139, and $216,739, respectively. GJ tube had significantly higher costs for diagnostic testing compared to GT (median $8768 vs. $1007, p < 0.001). Conversion to GJ tube resulted in costs of $68,241 per QALM gained compared to GT only. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients improved with GT alone without needing GJ tube or fundoplication. GT and GJ tube were associated with improvement in symptoms and QOL. GJ tube patients reported greater gains in QALMS but incurred higher costs. Further analysis of willingness to pay for each additional QALM will help determine the value of care. STUDY AND LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Cost-effectiveness study, Level II.

Bariatric Surgery Among Medicare Subgroups: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine weight change, postoperative adverse events, and related outcomes of interest among age-qualified (AQ) and disability-qualified (DQ) Medicare recipients compared with non-Medicare (NM) patients undergoing an initial bariatric procedure. METHODS: The Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS-2) is an observational cohort study of 2,458 adults who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) bariatric surgery. Weight, percentage body fat, functional status, and comorbidities, as well as postoperative adverse events, were assessed at baseline and annually for 5 years. The 1,943 participants who reported insurance type were categorized into the following groups: AQ, DQ, or NM. RESULTS: The median preoperative BMI ranged from 45 to 48 kg/m2 across groups. For RYGB, 5-year BMI loss was approximately 30% for all groups, and for LAGB, BMI loss was 12% to 15%. Diabetes remission after 5 years was also similar across groups within procedure types (RYGB: 33%-40%; LAGB: 13%-19%). The frequency of adverse events after RYGB ranged from 4.1% for NM participants to 6.7% for DQ participants. After LAGB, there were no adverse events for the AQ group, whereas 3% of DQ participants and 1.8% of NM participants had at least one adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare participants experienced substantial BMI loss and diabetes remission, with a frequency of adverse events similar to that of NM participants.

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Aspiration Therapy vs Bariatric Surgery and No Treatment for Morbid Obesity.

INTRODUCTION: Despite its recent approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada, aspiration therapy-one of the latest weight loss treatments-remains controversial. Critics have expressed concerns that the therapy could lead to bulimia and other binge eating disorders. Meanwhile, proponents argue that the therapy is less invasive, reversible, and cheaper than bariatric surgery. Cost-effectiveness of this therapy, however, is not yet established. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of aspiration therapy relative to 2 most common bariatric surgery procedures (gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) and no treatment over a lifetime horizon. Costs were estimated from the health system's perspective using US data. Effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Despite being a cheaper procedure than bariatric surgery, aspiration therapy costs more than bariatric surgery in the long term because of its high maintenance costs (i.e., periodic replacement of device parts). It also yields lower QALYs than bariatric surgery because of its smaller weight loss effects. Thus, the therapy is dominated by bariatric surgery. In particular, compared with gastric bypass, it costs US$5,318 more and yields 1.31 fewer QALYs. However, aspiration therapy is cost-effective relative to no treatment with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$17,532 per QALY gained. DISCUSSION: Given its high lifetime costs and its modest weight loss effects, aspiration therapy is not cost-effective relative to bariatric surgery. However, it is a cost-effective treatment option for patients who lack access to bariatric surgery.

A comparison of the da Vinci Xi vs. the da Vinci Si Surgical System for Roux-En-Y gastric bypass.

PURPOSE: The da Vinci Surgical System family remains the most widely used surgical robotic system for laparoscopy. Data about gastric bypass surgery with the Xi Surgical System are not available yet. We compared Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery performed at our institution with the da Vinci Xi and the da Vinci Si Surgical System. METHODS: All robotic gastric bypass procedures performed between January 2013 and September 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. Patient demographics and operative and postoperative outcomes up to 30 days were compared for the da Vinci Xi and Si Surgical System. Robotic costs per procedure were modeled including posts for a standard set of robotic instruments, capital investment, and yearly maintenance. RESULTS: One-hundred forty-four Xi Surgical System and 195 Si Surgical System procedures were identified. Mean age (p = 0.9), gender distribution (p = 0.8), BMI (p = 0.6), and ASA scores (p > 0.5) were similar in both cohorts. Operating room times were similar in both groups (219.4 ± 58.8 vs. 227.4 ± 60.5 min for Xi vs. Si, p = 0.22). Docking times were significantly longer with the Xi compared with the Si Surgical System (9 ± 4.8 vs. 5.8 ± 4 min, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in incidence of minor (13.9 vs. 10.3%, p = 0.3) and major complications (5.6 vs. 5.1%, p = 1 for Xi vs. Si). Costs were higher for the Xi Surgical System caused by higher capital investment and yearly maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery can be safely performed with the Xi Surgical System, while drawbacks include longer docking times and higher costs.

Cost-Utility of Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity with a BMI ≥ 27.5 kg/m2: a Multi-Center Study with a 4-Year Follow-Up of Surgical Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To find whether Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery was cost effective compared to conventional medical management (CMM) in Chinese patients with type 2 Diabetes(T2D) and obesity with a body mass index (BMI) ≥27.5 kg/m2 in four years. METHODS: A total of 106 obese T2D individuals who underwent RYGB and 106 T2D patients treated with CMM were enrolled from three academic medical centers. Total health related costs, Glycated Hemoglobin A1c (A1C) and BMI was recorded. Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) was used. Utility values according to results of A1c were obtained from published studies. RESULTS: Improvements were observed in A1C (8.6% at baseline to 6.2% in the first year, p < 0.001) and BMI (30.7 kg/m2 at baseline to 24.3 kg/m2 in the first year, p < 0.001), and the effect lasted for 4 years after RYGB. In the CMM group, A1C fluctuated in four years. The health utility for RYGB group scores 3.756, whereas CMM group scores 3.594 in four years. The total healthcare costs decreased sharply from the second year after RYGB ($8,483 [¥52,596] in the first year to $672[¥4,164] in the second year, p < 0.001) and maintained for 3 years. In the CMM group, the total healthcare costs changed without significance. RYGB costs US$19,359 (¥125,836) per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained (incremental cost-utility ratio [ICUR]) compared to CMM, which was lower than a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $20,277/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CMM, RYGB is cost-effective for Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity 4 years after operation.

Current Practice of Global Bariatric Tourism-Survey-Based Study.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to present the experience of bariatric surgeons with medical tourism on a global scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online-based survey was sent to bariatric surgeons worldwide regarding surgeon's country of practice, number and types of bariatric procedures performed, number of tourists treated, their countries of origin, reasons for travel, follow-up, and complications. RESULTS: Ninety-three responders performed 18,001 procedures in 2017. Sixty-four of those 93 responders operated on foreign patients performing a total of 3740 operations for them. The majority of the responders practice in India (n = 11, 17%), Mexico (n = 10, 16%), and Turkey (n = 6, 9%). Mexico dominated the number of bariatric surgeries for tourists with 2557 procedures performed in 2017. The most frequent procedures provided were laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) provided by 89.1% of the respondents, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (40.6% of respondents), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (37.5% of respondents). CONCLUSION: At least 2% of worldwide bariatric procedures are provided for medical tourists. Countries such as Mexico, Lebanon, and Romania dominate as providers for patients mainly from the USA, UK, and Germany. The lack of affordable bariatric healthcare and long waiting lists are some of the reasons for patients choosing bariatric tourism.

Cost-Utility of Gastric Bypass Surgery Compared to Clinical Treatment for Severely Obese With and Without Diabetes in the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System.

PURPOSE: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Weight loss due to gastric bypass (GBP) surgery improves clinical outcomes and may be a cost-effective intervention. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of GBP compared to clinical treatment in severely obese individuals with and without diabetes in the perspective of the Brazilian public health system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of gastric bypass in an open approach to clinical treatment. Health states were living with diabetes, remission of diabetes, non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction, and death. We also included the occurrence of complications related to surgery and plastic surgery after the gastric bypass surgery. The direct costs were obtained from primary data collection performed in three public reference centers for obesity treatment. Utility values also derived from this cohort, while transition probabilities came from the international literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate uncertainties. The model considered a 10-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate. RESULTS: Over 10 years, GBP increased quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs compared to clinical treatment, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Int$1820.17/QALY and Int$1937.73/QALY in individuals with and without diabetes, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values and direct costs of treatments were the parameters that affected the most the ICERs. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that GBP is a cost-effective intervention for severely obese individuals in the Brazilian public health system perspective, with a better result in individuals with diabetes.

Less Morbidity with Robot-Assisted Gastric Bypass Surgery than with Laparoscopic Surgery?

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies have compared totally robot-assisted gastric bypass (RA-GB) to laparoscopic gastric bypass (L-GB), the clinical benefit of the robotic approach remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared perioperative outcomes of 82 consecutive patients undergoing RA-GB between 2013 and 2016 to 169 consecutive patients having undergone L-GB between 2009 and 2016. Secondary endpoints included duration of hospitalization, readmission rate, weight loss at 1 year, and the learning curve of RA-GB, assessed by operation times and complication rates. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups concerning age (43.5 ± 11.2 vs. 42.2 ± 12.4 years), body mass index (42.4 ± 5.0 vs. 43.6 ± 7.2 kg/m2), or comorbidities. The rate of revision surgery was higher in L-GB group without reaching statistical significance. No statistically significant difference was observed for duration of operation (134 ± 35 vs. 135 ± 37 min), readmission rate at 90 days (4.9% vs. 8.9%), or percentage of excess weight loss at 1 year (RA-GB vs. L-GB) (76.8% ± 20.5 vs. 73.1% ± 23.5). There were fewer statistically significant complications overall in RA-GB (9.8% vs. 21.9%, p = 0.019). Median duration of hospital stay was shorter for RA-GB (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.0001). The mean duration of operation for RA-GB decreased from 153 min in 2014 to 122 min in 2016; p = 0.004. CONCLUSION: In our experience, the robotic approach for gastric bypass was associated with fewer postoperative complications compared to traditional laparoscopic gastric bypass. Cost increment associated with RA-GB remains an important drawback that hampers its widespread.

The value of surgical experience: excess costs associated with the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass learning curve.

BACKGROUND: Gastric bypass has a steep learning curve that is associated with increased adverse outcomes and these adverse outcomes are associated with increases in cost. This study sought to quantify the effect of cumulative procedure volume on inpatient cost and characterize the excess cost associated with a surgeon's learning curve. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 29 high-volume surgeons during the first 6 years of performing gastric bypass in a regionalized center of excellence system. Cumulative volume was determined using the procedure date and analyzed in blocks of 25 cases. The main outcomes of interest were inpatient cost for the initial hospital stay in 2014 Canadian dollars as well as prolonged length of stay (≥ 3 days). RESULTS: Overall, 11,684 cases were identified from April 2009 to March 2015. After a surgeon's 50th case, the adjusted inpatient cost decreased by $2775 (95% CI $- 4352 to $- 1204 p = 0.001) compared to the first 25 cases. Cost savings were maintained through a surgeon's 400th case. The average cost savings after the 50th case was $2082 (95% CI $- 3194 to $- 962 p < 0.001) and the excess cost attributable to the first 50 cases was $104,077 (95% CI 48,104 to 159,682) per surgeon. Surgeon experience was also associated with a decrease odds of prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the influence of surgeon experience on improved cost efficiencies. We also characterized that the average excess cost per surgeon of implementing gastric bypass was approximately $104,000. This is relevant to future health system planning as well as providing an economic incentive for impactful training interventions.

Utility of Immediate Postoperative Upper Gastrointestinal Contrast Study in Bariatric Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Routine use of postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) contrast studies after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is controversial. We sought to determine the usefulness of routine UGI contrast studies during postoperative day (POD) 1 in patients who underwent bariatric surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent SG or RYGB between January 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017. Demographics, surgical data, and immediate surgical adverse effects were collected. We compared patients who underwent routine UGI contrast studies on POD 1 versus patients who did not. RESULTS: A total of 284 patients were analyzed; 197 (69.4%) patients underwent RYGB, while 87 (30.6%) underwent SG. Routine UGI contrast study was performed in 96 (48.7%) patients in the RYGB group versus 31 (35.6%) in the SG group. The overall adverse effect rate was 2 (0.7%); postoperative UGI contrast study was negative in both cases. Mean (SD) length of stay (LOS) for patients who underwent UGI contrast study versus those who did not was similar in the RYGB group (1.8 [1.6] days vs 1.8 [0.9] days, respectively) and the SG group (2 [1.18] days vs 1.9 [0.9] days). The average cost of a postoperative UGI contrast study was $600, resulting in an additional overall cost of $76,800. CONCLUSION: Use of routine UGI contrast studies after bariatric procedures does not appear to add clinical value for the detection of leaks. Furthermore, systematic use of postoperative UGI contrast studies neither seem to reduce LOS, nor appear to increase procedure costs.

Ten-year outcomes of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are equivalent in patients with Medicare disability and non-Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is the most effective intervention for achieving durable weight loss and improvement of comorbidities in patients with obesity. Limited data exist on the impact of Medicare status in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. We hypothesized that there is no difference in outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries and non-Medicare patients at the 10-year follow-up. METHODS: All patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with 10-year follow-up at a single medical center from 1985 to 2005 were stratified by Medicare insurance status. Outcomes included 10-year percent reduction in excess body mass index and comorbidity resolution. RESULTS: Of 617 patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with 10-year follow-up, 117 (19%) were insured under Medicare. Medicare patients were older (43 vs 40 years, P = .01) and had a greater preoperative body mass index (53.2 vs 51.0 kg/m2, P = .03) than non-Medicare patients, but there were no differences in preoperative median comorbidity index scores (3 [interquartile range 1-4] vs 2 [interquartile range 1-5], P = .33). At 10 years, weight loss (58.3% vs 57.0 percent reduction in excess body mass index, P = .16) and the decrease in median comorbidity index (1 [interquartile range 0-3] vs 1 [interquartile range 0-3], P = .85) were equivalent between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is equally beneficial in Medicare Disability and non-Medicare patients at 10 years. These findings support the continued and expanded coverage of bariatric surgery operations by Medicare.

Conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after failure of laparoscopic gastric band: A systematic review of the literature and cost considerations.

No universal consensus has been achieved as to whether the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy conversion should be performed in one or two steps. To determine the differences in operative outcomes and cost, a systematic, comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed database from the National Institutes of Health. Nine studies were included with 809 patients. Weighted averages were calculated to compare operative outcomes, and cost analyses were conducted with these averages. Results indicate a longer operative time for the one-step approach than the two-step approach, but studies included in the meta-analysis found no statistical difference between the two. The two-step approach was found to have a longer length of hospital stay, but this finding refuted included studies that indicate no significant difference. Complication rates were higher for the one-step approach than the two-step approach, and costs associated with complications average $806 more for one-step patients than two-step patients. This suggests that the two-step approach could prove better for patient safety and cost outcomes, but both approaches are comparable in operating time and length of stay.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bariatric Surgery for Morbid Obesity.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, three types of bariatric surgeries are widely performed, including laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). However, few economic evaluations of bariatric surgery are published. There is also scarcity of studies focusing on the LSG alone. Therefore, this study is evaluating the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery using LRYGB, LAGB, and LSG as treatment for morbid obesity. METHODS: A microsimulation model was developed over a lifetime horizon to simulate weight change, health consequences, and costs of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity. US health care prospective was used. A model was propagated based on a report from the first report of the American College of Surgeons. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were used in the model. Model parameters were estimated from publicly available databases and published literature. RESULTS: LRYGB was cost-effective with higher QALYs (17.07) and cost ($138,632) than LSG (16.56 QALYs; $138,925), LAGB (16.10 QALYs; $135,923), and no surgery (15.17 QALYs; $128,284). Sensitivity analysis showed initial cost of surgery and weight regain assumption were very sensitive to the variation in overall model parameters. Across patient groups, LRYGB remained the optimal bariatric technique, except that with morbid obesity 1 (BMI 35-39.9 kg/m2) patients, LSG was the optimal choice. CONCLUSION: LRYGB is the optimal bariatric technique, being the most cost-effective compared to LSG, LAGB, and no surgery options for most subgroups. However, LSG was the most cost-effective choice when initial BMI ranged between 35 and 39.9 kg/m2.