ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project for acute gallbladder pathology.

BACKGROUND: Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to the emergency department, but clinical evidence is limited. We aimed to compare the outcomes of emergent laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies in a large real-world database. METHODS: Patients who received emergent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomies from 2020 to 2022 were identified from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database, based on deidentified extraction of electronic health record data from US hospitals. Conversion to open or subtotal cholecystectomy and complications were defined using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic approach after balancing covariates. Cost analysis was performed with activity-based costing and adjustment for inflation. RESULTS: Of 26,786 laparoscopic and 3,151 robotic emergent cholecystectomy patients being included, 64% were female, 60% were ≥45 years, and 24% were obese. Approximately 5.5% patients presented with pancreatitis, and 4% each presenting with sepsis and biliary obstruction. After IPTW, distributions of all baseline covariates were balanced. Robotic cholecystectomy decreased odds of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93; p = 0.035), but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.60; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection, readmission, length of stay, hospital acquired conditions, bile duct injury or leak, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in hospital cost. CONCLUSION: Robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open and comparable complications, but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder diseases. Further work is required to assess the long-term implications of these differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Costos de las diversas modalidades posoperatorias de la colecistectomía laparoscópica. Cooperativa Médica de Florida (COMEF), 2016-2021 / Cost effectivenes of the different postoperative management modalities in laparoscopic cholecystectomy Florida Medical Cooperative (COMEF) 2016-2021 / Custos das várias modalidades pós-operatórias do colecistectomia laparoscópica. Cooperativa Médica da Flórida (COMEF). 2016-2021

Introducción: la colecistectomía laparoscópica constituye el patrón oro en el tratamiento de la litiasis biliar. Bajo una estricta selección de pacientes, la modalidad ambulatoria ha demostrado ser factible y segura. En COMEF se realiza desde el año 2016. El posoperatorio transcurrió por diferentes etapas, internación en cuidados moderados, internación en sala de cirugía del día más internación domiciliaria, internación únicamente en sala de cirugía del día y finalmente alta domiciliaria desde block quirúrgico. El objetivo del trabajo es calcular los costos de cada una de las modalidades posoperatorias de la colecistectomía laparoscópica en el período 2016-2021. Materiales y método: se realizó un estudio de costos de cada una de las modalidades posoperatorias mediante la determinación del costo del día cama ocupada en cuidados moderados e internación domiciliaria, así como la retribución de un auxiliar de enfermería encargado de la sala de cirugía del día. Los datos fueron obtenidos de la Estructura de Costos de Atención a la Salud y la producción de cada servicio. Resultados: el costo del día cama ocupada en cuidados moderados es de $15.056, el de internación en sala de cirugía del día y luego internación domiciliaria $4.953,69, únicamente en sala de cirugía del día $807,69 y finalmente el alta domiciliaria desde block quirúrgico $33. Conclusiones: los costos del posoperatorio de la colecistectomía laparoscópica en modalidad ambulatoria son menores que los que requieren internación en cuidados moderados, y dichos costos se reducen progresivamente cuando se pasa de la internación domiciliaria al alta sin internación domiciliaria y sin recuperación en sala de cirugía del día.

Introduction: laparoscopic cholecystectomy constitutes the gold standard to treat gallstones. Ambulatory treatment has proved to be feasible and safe for carefully selected patients. At COMEF, laparoscopic cholecystectomies have been performed since 2016, and postoperative management has covered different stages: intermediate care during hospitalization, admission in day surgery units plus home care or home admissions, hospitalization in day surgery units and discharge directly after surgery, directly from the ER. The study aims to calculate the cost of each one of the different postoperative management modalities for laparoscopic cholecystectomies between 2016 and 2021. Method: a cost study was conducted for each one of the postoperative management modalities by calculating the cost of the hospital bed day in intermediate care and house care, as well as the salary of the nurses' staff at the day surgery unit. Data was obtained from the Healthcare Services Cost Structure and the production of each one of the services mentioned. Results: the daily bed day cost in intermediate care is $ 15,056, the daily cost of day surgery unit plus home care afterwards is $ 4,953.69, the cost of surgery admission in the day surgery unit is $ 807.69 and discharge directly from the OR is $ 33. Conclusions: the postoperative cost of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy is lower than that requiring interaction in intermediate care and these costs are progressively reduced when moving from home care with and without interaction upon discharge towards no recovery in the day surgery unit.

Introdução: a colecistectomia laparoscópica é o padrão ouro no tratamento da litíase biliar. Com uma rigorosa seleção de pacientes, a modalidade ambulatorial tem se mostrado viável e segura. Na COMEF é realizada desde 2016, com o pós-operatório passando por diferentes etapas: internação em cuidados moderados, internação na sala de cirurgia do dia mais internação domiciliar, internação apenas na sala de cirurgia no dia e finalmente alta domiciliar do bloco cirúrgico. Objetivo: calcular os custos de cada uma das modalidades pós-operatórias de colecistectomia laparoscópica no período 2016-2021. Materiais e método: foi realizado um estudo dos custos de cada uma das modalidades pós-operatórias determinando o custo do dia de leito ocupado em cuidados moderados e internação atendimento domiciliar, bem como a remuneração de um auxiliar de enfermagem responsável pela cirurgia do dia. Os dados foram obtidos da Estrutura de Custos de Assistência à Saúde e da produção de cada serviço. Resultados: o custo do leito de dia ocupado em cuidados moderados, em é de $ 15.056, a hospitalização na sala de cirurgia de dia e depois internação domiciliar $ 4.953,69, apenas na sala da cirurgia de dia $ 807,69 e finalmente alta domiciliar do bloco cirúrgico $ 33 (valores em pesos uruguaios). Conclusões: os custos pós-operatórios da colecistectomia laparoscópica na modalidade ambulatorial são menores do que aqueles que requerem interação em cuidados moderados e são progressivamente reduzidos quando passa da internação em casa à alta sem interação em casa e sem recuperação na sala de cirurgia no dia.

Safety and feasibility of prolonged versus early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC), and it should be performed within 72 h of symptoms onset if possible. In many undesired situations, LC was performed beyond the golden 72 h. However, the safety and feasibility of prolonged LC (i.e., performed more than 72 h after symptoms onset) are largely unknown, and therefore were investigated in this study. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled the adult patients who were diagnosed as AC and were treated with LC at the same admission between January 2015 and October 2018 in an emergency department of a tertiary academic medical center in China. The primary outcome was the rate and severity of adverse events, while the secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and costs. RESULTS: Among the 104 qualified patients, 70 (67.3%) underwent prolonged LC and 34 (32.7%) underwent early LC (< 72 h of symptom onset). There were no differences between the two groups in mortality rate (none for both), conversion rates (prolonged LC 5.4%, and early LC 8.8%, P = 0.68), intraoperative and postoperative complications (prolonged LC 5.7% and early LC 2.9%, P ≥ 0.99), operation time (prolonged LC 193.5 min and early LC 198.0 min, P = 0.81), and operation costs (prolonged LC 8,700 Yuan, and early LC 8,500 Yuan, P = 0.86). However, the prolonged LC was associated with longer postoperative hospitalization (7.0 days versus 6.0 days, P = 0.03), longer total hospital stay (11.0 days versus 8.0 days, P < 0.01), and subsequently higher total costs (40,400 Yuan versus 31,100 Yuan, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged LC is safe and feasible for patients with AC for having similar rates and severity of adverse events as early LC, but it is also associated with longer hospital stay and subsequently higher total cost.

Variation in Intraoperative and Postoperative Utilization for 3 Common General Surgery Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand variation in intraoperative and postoperative utilization for common general surgery procedures. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Reducing surgical costs is paramount to the viability of hospitals. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of electronic health record data for 7762 operations from 2 health systems. Adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and inguinal/femoral hernia repair between November 1, 2013 and November 30, 2017 were reviewed for 3 utilization measures: intraoperative disposable supply costs, procedure time, and postoperative length of stay (LOS). Crossed hierarchical regression models were fit to understand case-mixed adjusted variation in utilization across surgeons and locations and to rank surgeons. RESULTS: The number of surgeons performing each type of operation ranged from 20 to 63. The variation explained by surgeons ranged from 8.9% to 38.2% for supply costs, from 15.1% to 54.6% for procedure time, and from 1.3% to 7.0% for postoperative LOS. The variation explained by location ranged from 12.1% to 26.3% for supply costs, from 0.2% to 2.5% for procedure time, and from 0.0% to 31.8% for postoperative LOS. There was a positive correlation (ρ = 0.49, P = 0.03) between surgeons' higher supply costs and longer procedure times for hernia repair, but there was no correlation between other utilization measures for hernia repair and no correlation between any of the utilization measures for laparoscopic appendectomy or cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons are significant drivers of variation in surgical supply costs and procedure time, but much less so for postoperative LOS. Intraoperative and postoperative utilization profiles can be generated for individual surgeons and may be an important tool for reducing surgical costs.

Cost difference of enhanced recovery after surgery pathway vs. Conventional care In Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a perioperative bundle aimed to reduce surgical stress. Significant reductions in length of hospital stay and associated costs have been reported in multiple studies in all surgical specialties. Purpose of the study was to compare the effect of Enhanced recovery protocols vs. conventional care on perioperative length of hospital stay and cost per patient in a government funded hospital. METHODS: this randomized controlled trial was conducted in the department of General Surgery, unit B, Lady reading hospital, Peshawar from April to December 2018. One hundred and fifty patients were selected based on consecutive sampling. Random allocation into two groups of 75 (ERAS vs Conventional) was done based on computer generated numbers. Length of hospital stay and total direct costs were calculated. Frequency of Surgical site infections, readmissions and mortality was also recorded. Patient reported outcomes were recorded by Surgical Recovery Scale SRS. RESULTS: Patients in the Enhanced recovery group showed a significant reduction in length of hospital stay 28.9 hours in ERAS group vs 40.5 hours in Conventional care group (p<0.001). Total per patient cost was reduced in the ERAS group PKR 6804 in comparison to the conventional care PKR 7682 (p<0.001). Patient reported outcomes measured on Surgical Recovery Scale SRS on discharge, day 3 of discharge and day 10 of discharge showed no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced recovery protocols demonstrated a reduction in length of perioperative hospital stay and total cost despite similar post discharge recovery scores on Surgical Recovery Scale SRS and no increase in readmissions.

National trends and outcomes of inpatient robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has reached nearly universal adoption in the management of gallstone-related disease. With advances in operative technology, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy has been used increasingly in many practices, but few studies have examined the adoption of robotic assistance for inpatient cholecystectomy and the temporal outcomes on a national scale. The present study aimed to identify trends in utilization, as well as outcomes and factors associated with the use of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy. METHODS: The 2008 to 2017 database of the National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients undergoing inpatient cholecystectomy. Independent predictors of the use of robotic assistance for cholecystectomy were identified using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Of an estimated 3,193,697 patients undergoing cholecystectomy, 98.7% underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 1.3% robotic-assisted cholecystectomy. Rates of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy increased from 0.02% in 2008 to 3.2% in 2017 (nptrend < .001). Compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, patients undergoing robotic-assisted cholecystectomy had a greater burden of comorbidities as measured by the Elixhauser index (2.2 vs 1.9, P < .001). Although mortality rates were similar, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with greater complication rates (15.5% vs 11.7%, P < .001), most notably gastrointestinal-related complications (3.7% vs 1.5%, P < .001). On multivariable regression, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with increased costs of hospitalization (ß: $2,398, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Using the largest national database available, we found a dramatic increase in the use of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy with no difference in mortality or duration of hospital stay, but there was a statistically significant increase in complications and costs. These findings warrant further investigation.

Achieving Surgical Supply Savings through Preference Card Standardization.

Among high volume procedures considerable variation exists in the average cost per case (ACPC) of surgical supplies used between surgeons. A contributing factor to these cost differences are divergences in surgeons' preference cards, which act as a guide to hospital staff for the supplies a surgeon requires to successfully perform a procedure. This article documents efforts and results of an initiative to standardize preference cards for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies. Data collected for this project outlined differences between surgeon's preference card composition, utilization of selected supplies and associated procedure costs. Reports were developed that grouped surgical supplies based on United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPC) product classes and highlighted classes with the highest per case standard deviations. Based on these findings and feedback from clinical partners, a composite set of supplies for use across all preference cards was developed in conjunction with the Chief of General Surgery. The net result of moving to a standardized set of supplies was an estimated $21,650 in annual supply expenses associated with Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies. Results suggest that standard deviation-based reports organized by product class facilitate effective surgeon-to-surgeon comparisons and make apparent readily available supply substitutes that are less expensive.

Early vs. Delayed Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis - Single Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now considered the procedure of choice that achieves a shorter recovery period after the surgery and reduction in the cost of treatment. Aim: The aim of the study is to prove which method: early or delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the method of choice in the treatment of acute cholecystitis by examining: duration of hospitalization, conversion rate, duration of surgery, postoperative complications, and total cost. METHODS: The study was conducted at the University Clinical Center of Republika Srpska as a retrospective-prospective study from May 1st 2013 until December 31st 2019. Patients diagnosed with acute cholecystitis were divided into two groups: Patients designated for early laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 hours of admission (group A-42 patients), Patients designated for initial conservative treatment followed by a delayed interval of 6-12 weeks until surgery (group B-42 patients). RESULTS: In both groups, there were statistically significantly more female respondents. The results showed that the average cost of treatment in the early treated group was statistically significantly lower than the cost of treatment in the delayed treatment group. The patients in the early group had shorter hospitalization times (an average of 2.8 days and 5.6 days in the delayed group of patients), a smaller percentage of conversions (4.8% in the early and 16.7 in the delayed group of patients), the total cost of in the early group it was 1300.83 KM, while in the delayed group it was 1645.43 KM. CONCLUSION: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a method to be preferred in surgical treatment.

Normalization of Serum Lipase Levels Versus Resolution of Abdominal Pain: A Comparison of Preoperative Management in Children With Biliary Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over the timing of cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis in children. Some surgeons await normalization of serum lipase levels while others are guided by resolution of abdominal pain; however, there are minimal data to support either practice. We hypothesized that resolution of abdominal pain is equivalent in outcome to awaiting normalization of lipase levels in patients undergoing cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis. METHODS: After institutional review board (IRB) approval, the medical record was retrospectively queried for all cases of cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis at our institution from 2007 to 2017. Patients undergoing chemotherapy, admitted for another cause, or who had severe underlying comorbidities like ventilator dependence were excluded. Patients were stratified into two cohorts: those managed preoperatively by normalization of serum lipase levels versus resolution of abdominal pain. Demographics, serum lipase levels, postoperative complications, cost of stay, readmissions, and return to the emergency department were collected and analyzed using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients met inclusion: 29 patients had lipase levels trended until normalization compared with 45 patients who had resolution of abdominal pain prior to cholecystectomy. Among the two cohorts there was no statistical difference in age, gender, race, ethnicity, or type of preoperative imaging used. Trended patients were found to have more serum lipase levels tested (8.5 ± 6.2 versus 3.4 ± 2.5, P < 0.0001). The trended lipase cohort was significantly more likely to require preoperative total parenteral nutrition (48% versus 11%, P = 0.007) and consequently a longer time before resuming a diet (10 ± 7.3 versus 4.6 ± 2.4 d, P < 0.0001). When comparing the two groups, we found no significant difference in the duration of surgery, postoperative complications, or readmissions. Lipase trended patients had a significantly longer length of stay compared with nontrended patients (11.5 ± 8.1 versus 4.2 ± 2.3 d, P < 0.0001) and had a higher total cost of stay ($38,094 ± 25,910 versus $20,205 ± 5918, P = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that in children with biliary pancreatitis, proceeding with cholecystectomy after resolution of abdominal pain is equivalent in outcomes to trending serum lipase levels but is more cost-effective with a decreased length of stay and decreased need for preoperative total parenteral nutrition.

Benchmarking the value of care: Variability in hospital costs for common operations and its association with procedure volume.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve health care value (quality/cost) have become a priority in the United States. Although many seek to increase quality by reducing variability in adverse outcomes, less is known about variability in costs. In conjunction with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Healthcare Economics Committee, the objective of this study was to examine the extent of variability in total hospital costs for two common procedures: laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: Nationally weighted data for adults 18 years and older was obtained for patients undergoing each operation in the 2014 and 2016 National Inpatient Sample. Data were aggregated at the hospital-level to attain hospital-specific median index hospital costs in 2019 US dollars and corresponding annual procedure volumes. Cost variation was assessed using caterpillar plots and risk-standardized observed/expected cost ratios. Correlation analysis, variance decomposition, and regression analysis explored costs' association with volume. RESULTS: In 2016, 1,563 hospitals representing 86,170 LA and 2,276 hospitals representing 230,120 LC met the inclusion criteria. In 2014, the numbers were similar (1,602 and 2,259 hospitals). Compared with a mean of US $10,202, LA median costs ranged from US $2,850 to US $33,381. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy median costs ranged from US $4,406 to US $40,585 with a mean of US $12,567. Differences in cost strongly associated with procedure volume. Volume accounted for 9.9% (LA) and 12.4% (LC) of variation between hospitals, after controlling for the influence of other hospital (8.2% and 5.0%) and patient (6.3% and 3.7%) characteristics and in-hospital complications (0.8% and 0.4%). Counterfactual modeling suggests that were all hospitals to have performed at or below their expected median cost, one would see a national cost savings of greater than US $301.9 million per year (95% confidence interval, US $280.6-325.5 million). CONCLUSION: Marked variability of median hospital costs for common operations exists. Differences remained consistent across changing coding structures and database years and were strongly associated with volume. Taken together, the findings suggest room for improvement in emergency general surgery and a need to address large discrepancies in an often-overlooked aspect of value. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

Robotic compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A propensity matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: As robotic surgery becomes more ubiquitous, determining clinical benefit is necessary to justify the cost and time investment required to become proficient. We hypothesized that robotic cholecystectomy would be associated with improved clinical outcomes but also increased cost as compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a single academic hospital between 2007 and 2017 were identified using an institutional clinical data repository. Patients were stratified by operative approach (robotic versus laparoscopic) for comparison and propensity score matched 1:10 based on relevant comorbidities and demographics. Categorical variables were analyzed by the χ2 test and continuous variables using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: A total of 3,255 patients underwent cholecystectomy during the study period. We observed no differences in demographics or body mass index, but greater rates of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and gastroesophageal reflux disease were present in the laparoscopic group. After matching (n = 106 robotic, n = 1,060 laparoscopic), there were no differences in preoperative comorbidities. Patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy had lesser durations of stay (robotic: 0.1 ± 0.7 versus laparoscopic: 0.8 ± 1.9, P < .0001) and lesser 90-day readmission rates (robotic: 0% [0], laparoscopic: 4.1% [43], P = 0.035); however, both operative and hospital costs were greater compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. CONCLUSION: Robotic cholecystectomy is associated with lesser duration of stay and lesser readmission rate within 90 days of the index operation, but also greater operative duration and hospital cost compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hospitals and surgeons need to consider the improved clinical outcomes but also the monetary and time investment required before pursuing robotic cholecystectomy.

Robot-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe but costly approach: A national database review.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate surgical outcomes, cost, and opiate utilization of patients who underwent laparoscopic (LC) or robotic cholecystectomy (RC). METHODS: The Vizient database was queried for patients admitted with mild to moderate severity of illness (SOI) scores who underwent LC or RC from January 2015 through December 2017. Rates of overall complications, postoperative infection, mortality, LOS, cost, and opiate utilization were compared between groups using IBM SPSS v.25.0, α = 0.05. RESULTS: 91,849 patients (LC:N = 89,878; RC:N = 1,971) met the inclusion criteria. Robotic approach was associated with more complications (LC:0.9%, RC:1.7%; p < 0.001), postoperative infections (LC:0.2%, RC:0.4%; p = 0.033) and a higher direct cost (LC:$6782 ±â€¯3421, RC:$9354 ±â€¯5497; p < 0.001). Opiates were prescribed more frequently in the laparoscopic group (LC:98.3%, RC:97.2%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The direct cost of RC is significantly higher than LC with no added benefit. Routine use of the robotic platform for cholecystectomy should be discouraged until costs are reduced.

Reduced Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Innovative, Cost-Effective Technique with Superior Cosmetic Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Patient demand for cosmetically superior surgical outcomes has driven minimally invasive technique development like single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). Implementation has been hindered by equipment factors, compromise of ergonomics, increased cost, and larger primary incision, leading to the associated risk of postoperative wound complications, incisional hernia, and fascial dehiscence. We present a method of reduced port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RPLC), which utilises existing laparoscopic conventional equipment and an innovative MiniLap® grasper (Teleflex Incorporated, Wayne, Pennsylvania). The aim of the approach being enhanced cosmesis, cost equivalence with existing methods, and preservation of surgical ergonomics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients presenting to a single-surgeon practice with pathology requiring cholecystectomy and favourable body habitus were offered an RPLC procedure. Abdominal access was obtained via two laparoscopic working ports placed through a single incision within the umbilicus and with a 2.3mm port-less MiniLap® inserted via stab incision in the right upper quadrant utilised for retraction. Operative time, cost, cosmesis, postoperative pain, and patient demographics were compared with the standard four-port cholecystectomy. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent RPLC with age ranging from 20 to 67 with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 31kg/m2. Mean operative time of 36.3 minutes was comparable to conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). All operations were completed as RPLC, and no conversion to conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was required. Gall bladder retraction with Teleflex grasper and an innovative swirling technique provides adequate exposure of the hepato-cystic triangle. Patient response regarding cosmetic outcome of the procedure was overwhelmingly positive. A single complication of the RPLC technique was documented-a superficial umbilical site wound infection, which was treated with oral antibiotics. Instrumental cost of the RPLC was $80 (AUD) greater than standard 4LP due to reduced port number but higher MiniLap® cost. CONCLUSION: The RPLC method utilises an ergonomically attractive technique with outcomes and a safety profile equal to the standard multi-port LC whilst minimizing the complications and prohibitive economic penalties of traditional SILC. A well-designed prospective randomised trial can provide more insight into the pros and cons of this innovative technique.

Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory setting.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has emerged as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the clinical setting. Limited information is available on the possibility of performing single-incision laparoscopic surgery as an ambulatory procedure. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus conventional LC in an ambulatory setting. METHODS: Ninety-one patients were randomized to SILC (n = 49) or LC (n = 42). The success rate, operative duration, blood loss, hospital stay, gallbladder perforation, drainage, delayed discharge, readmission, total cost, complications, pain score, vomiting, and cosmetic satisfaction of the two groups were then compared. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the operative time (46.89 ±â€¯10.03 min in SILC vs. 37.24 ±â€¯10.23 min in LC; P < 0.001). As compared with LC, SILC was associated with lower total costs (8012.28 ±â€¯752.67 RMB vs. 10258.91 ± 1087.63 RMB; P < 0.001) and better cosmetic satisfaction (4.94 ± 0.24 vs. 4.74 ± 0.54; P = 0.031). There were no significant differences between-group in terms of general data, success rate, blood loss, hospital stay, gallbladder perforation, drainage, delayed discharge, readmission, complications, pain score, and vomiting (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory SILC is safe and feasible for selected patients. The advantages of SILC as compared with LC are improved cosmetic satisfaction and lower total costs.

Impact of body mass index on utilization of selected hospital resources for four common surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Evidence about the impact of obesity on surgical resource consumption in the Australian setting is equivocal. Our objectives were to quantify the prevalence of obesity in four frequently performed surgical procedures and explore the association between body mass index (BMI) and hospital resource utilization including procedural duration, length of stay (LOS) and costs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing four surgical procedures at a tertiary referral centre in New South Wales, between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016, was conducted. The four surgical procedures were total hip replacement, laparoscopic appendectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hysteroscopy with dilatation and curettage. Surgical groups were stratified according to BMI category. RESULTS: A total of 699 patients were included in the study. The prevalence of obesity was significantly higher than local and national population estimates for all procedures except appendectomy. BMI was not associated with increased hospital resource utilization (procedural, anaesthetic or intensive care stay duration) in any of the four surgical procedures examined after controlling for age, gender and complexity. For other outcomes of hospital resource utilization (LOS and cost), the relationship was inconsistent across the four procedures examined. A high BMI was positively associated with higher LOS, medical costs and allied health costs in those who underwent an appendectomy, and critical care costs in those who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. CONCLUSION: Obesity was common in patients undergoing four frequently performed surgical procedures. The relationship between BMI and hospital resource utilization appears to be complex and varies across the four procedures examined.

10 years of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: A single tertiary institution experience.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE-LC) or ERCP plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP-LC) represent minimally invasive choledocholithiasis treatments. We hypothesized that LCBDE-LC has a shorter length of stay (LOS) and lower charges than ERCP-LC. METHODS: Charts were reviewed for all LCBDE-LC or ERCP-LC for choledocholithiasis from 2007 to 2017. Exclusions included cholangitis, concomitant procedures, or history of Roux-en-Y or biliary surgery. Groups were determined via intention-to-treat with LCBDE-LC or ERCP-LC. RESULTS: 281 subjects were identified; 157 met inclusion criteria. 89 (56%) were in the LCBDE-LC group. There were no differences in age, sex, or ASA. LOS was shorter for LCBDE-LC (3.1 vs 4.4 days, p < 0.01) although total anesthesia time was longer (292 vs 262 min, p = 0.01). There was no difference in total charges ($44,412 vs $51,353, p = 0.08). Thirty (33%) LCBDE-LC were aborted due to challenges passing the dilator or scope (33%) or clearing stones (30%). Two ERCP-LC cases required post-procedure LCBDE. CONCLUSION: LCBDE-LC resulted in shorter LOS but had a high failure rate. Further research is needed to predict which cases suit each modality.

The heavy price of conversion from laparoscopic to open procedures for emergent cholecystectomies.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard operative intervention for gallbladder disease. Complications may necessitate conversion to an open cholecystectomy (OC). This study aims to determine the cost-consequences of laparoscopic-to-open conversion using a nationally-representative sample. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample (2007-2011), adult patients undergoing emergent LC were identified. Patients undergoing secondary-conversion to OC were subsequently identified. Multivariable regression analyses, accounting for differences in propensity-quintile, mortality, length of stay, and hospital-level factors were then performed to assess for differences in the odds of conversion and total predicted mean costs per index-hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 225,805 observations, conversion to open occurred in 1.86% (n = 4203) of cases. Increased age, African-American ethnicity, public-insurance and teaching-hospital status were associated with a higher likelihood of conversion (p < 0.05) after risk-adjustment. Risk-adjusted odds of conversion increased by 34% (95%CI:1.33-1.36) for each day surgery was delayed. Risk-adjusted costs, were 259% higher (absolute-difference $23,358,p < 0.05) with conversion. Mortality was higher amongst patients undergoing conversion to open (4.98% vs 0.34%,p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy are at an increased risk of receiving disparate care and increased mortality.

Targeting Value-Driven Quality Improvement for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Michigan.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate complete episode expenditures for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a common and lower-risk operation, to characterize novel targets for value-based quality improvement. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite enthusiasm for improving the overall value of surgical care, most efforts have focused on high-risk inpatient surgery. METHODS: We identified 19,213 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2012 to 2015 using data from Medicare and a large private payer. We calculated price-standardized payments for the entire surgical episode of care and stratified patients by surgeon. We used linear regression to risk- and reliability-adjusted expenditures for patient characteristics, diagnoses, and the use of additional procedures. RESULTS: Fully adjusted total episode costs varied 2.4-fold across surgeons ($7922-$17,500). After grouping surgeons by adjusted total episode payments, each component of the total episode was more expensive for patients treated by the most expensive versus the least expensive quartile of surgeons. For example, payments for physician services were higher for the most expensive surgeons [$1932, 95% confidence interval (CI) $1844-$2021] compared to least expensive surgeons ($1592, 95% CI $1450-$1701, P < 0.01). Overall differences were driven by higher rates of complications (10% vs. 5%) and readmissions (14% vs. 8%), and lower rates of ambulatory procedures (77% vs. 56%) for surgeons with the highest versus lowest expenditures. Projections showed that a 10% increase ambulatory operations would yield $3.6 million in annual savings for beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Episode payments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy vary widely across surgeons. Although improvements in several domains would reduce expenditures, efforts to expand ambulatory surgical practices may result in the largest savings to beneficiaries in Michigan.

A propensity score matched comparison of readmissions and cost of laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is an initial alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for complicated acute cholecystitis (AC). No studies have directly compared costs of index hospitalization and readmissions between PC and LC patients. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for patients undergoing PC or LC for AC from 2013 through 2014. Primary outcomes including length of stay, and index and total hospital costs at 30- and 60-days were evaluated after 1:1 propensity score matching for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: PC patients had increased index hospital length of stay: 6 days vs 5 days (p < 0.01). Index admission cost was cheaper for PC ($12,839 vs $13,345, p = 0.028). Total cost, including readmissions, was significantly increased in PC patients: 30-days (LC: $13,947, PC: $14,592, p = 0.029) and 60-days (LC: $14,280, PC: $16,518, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PC patients were more frequently readmitted, had longer hospital stays, and increased hospital costs compared to those undergoing LC.

Evaluating Surgeons on Intraoperative Disposable Supply Costs: Details Matter.

BACKGROUND: Cost report cards have demonstrated variation in intraoperative supply costs and may allow comparisons between surgeons. However, cost data are complex and, if not properly vetted, may be inaccurate. METHODS: A retrospective assessment of intraoperative supply costs for consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomies (2013-2017) at a 4-facility academic center was performed. Using unadjusted data (akin to an auto-generated report card), surgeons were ranked and highest to lowest-cost ratios were calculated. Then, four stepwise adjustments were performed: (1) excluded non-comparable operations and low volume (< 10 cases) surgeons, (2) eliminated outlier cases based on instrument profiles, (3) stratified by facility, and (4) adjusted prices (assigned one price; corrected aberrant/missing prices). Surgeon rank and highest to lowest-cost ratios were then re-calculated. RESULTS: The unadjusted data identified 1392 cases for 33 surgeons (range, 1-317 cases). The ratio between the highest cost and lowest cost surgeon was 4.13. Steps 1 and 2 excluded 272 cases and 15 surgeons. Facility sample sizes ranged from 144 to 621 (step 3). Adjusting prices (step 4) required manual review of 472 unique items: 45% had > 1 price and 16 had missing prices. After all adjustments, surgeons had different rankings and highest to lowest-cost ratios within sites were smaller (ratio range, 1.17-2.10). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating surgeons based on intraoperative supply costs is sensitive to analytic methods. Surgeons who were initially considered cost outliers became the least expensive within a given site. Auto-generated cost report cards may require additional analyses to produce accurate comparative assessments.