The impact of operative approach on postoperative outcomes and healthcare utilization after colectomy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate national trends in adoption of different surgical approaches for colectomy and compare clinical outcomes and resource utilization between approaches. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective inpatient left or right colectomy between 2010 and 2019 from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were classified by operative approach: open, minimally invasive: either laparoscopic or robotic. Postoperative outcomes assessed within index hospitalization include operating room time, hospital length of stay, rates of conversion to open surgery, reoperation, and complications. Post-discharge readmission, hospital-based encounters, and costs were collected to 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes between operative approaches adjusted for patient baseline characteristics and clustering within hospitals. RESULTS: Among 206,967 patients, the robotic approach rates increased from 2.1%/1.6% (2010) to 32.6%/26.8% (2019) for left/right colectomy, offset by a decrease in both open and laparoscopic approaches. Median length of stay for both left and right colectomies was significantly longer in open (6 days) and laparoscopic (5 days) compared to robotic surgery (4 days; all P values <.001). Robotic surgery compared to open and laparoscopic was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate, development of ileus, overall complications, and 30-day hospital encounters. Robotic surgery further demonstrated lower mortality, reoperations, postoperative bleeding, and readmission rates for left and right colectomies than open. Robotic surgery had significantly longer operating room times and higher costs than either open or laparoscopic. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in colon surgery, with outcomes equivalent and in some domains superior to laparoscopic.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and the cost of conversion.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is preferred for distal pancreatectomy but is not always attempted due to the risk of conversion to open. We hypothesized that the total cost for MIS converted to open procedures would be comparable to those that started open. METHODS: A prospectively collected institutional registry (2011-2017) was reviewed for demographic, clinical, and perioperative cost data for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS: There were 80 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy: 41 open, 39 MIS (11 laparoscopic and 28 robotic). Conversion to open occurred in 14 of 39 (36%, 3 laparoscopic and 11 robotic). Length of stay was shorter for the MIS completed (6 days; range, 3-8), and MIS converted to open (7 days; range, 4-10) groups, compared with open (10 days; range, 5-36; P = .003). Laparoscopic cases were the least expensive (P = .02). Robotic converted to open procedures had the highest operating room cost. However, the total cost for robotic converted to open cohort was similar to the open cohort due to cost savings associated with a shorter length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher intraoperative costs of robotic surgery, there is no significant overall financial penalty for conversion to open. Financial considerations should not play a role in selecting a robotic or open approach.

Conversion Total Knee Arthroplasty Needs Its Own Diagnosis-Related Group Code.

BACKGROUND: Conversion from a prior knee procedure has been demonstrated to require greater operative times and resources, but still lacks a separate procedural or facility code from primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is to determine differences in facility costs between patients who underwent primary TKA and those who underwent conversion TKA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing primary TKA at 2 hospitals from 2015 to 2017, comparing itemized facility costs between primary and conversion TKA patients. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for increased facility costs, the need for additional implants, length of stay, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Of 2447 TKA procedures, 678 (27.7%) underwent conversion TKA, which was associated with greater implant costs ($3931.47 vs $2864.67, P = .0120) and total facility costs in a multivariate regression ($94.30 increase, P = .0316). When controlling for confounding variables, patients with a prior ligament reconstruction ($402 increase, P = .0002) and prior open reduction and internal fixation ($847 increase, P = .0020) had higher costs and were more likely to require stemmed implants (P < .05). There was an increase in TKA implant cost by $538 in patients with implants from a prior procedure (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Conversion TKA is associated with greater implant and inpatient facility costs than primary TKA, particularly those who had a history of an open knee procedure. A separate diagnosis-related group should be created for conversion TKA given the increased cost and complexity of these procedures compared to primary TKA.

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.

Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: NSQIP data show that half of distal pancreatectomies (DP) are performed by a minimally invasive approach (MIS). Advantages have been demonstrated for MIS DP, yet comparative cost data are limited. Outcomes and cost were compared in patients undergoing open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) approaches at a single institution. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing DP between 1/2010-5/2016. Analysis was intention-to-treat, and cost was available after 1/2013. RESULTS: DP was performed in 374 patients: ODP = 85, LDP = 93, and RDP = 196. Operating time was lowest in the RDP cohort (p < 0.0001). ODP had higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and transfusions (p < 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. LDP had greater conversions to open procedures than RDP (p = 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. Length of stay was higher in the ODP group (p = 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. Overall cost for the ODP was higher than the RDP and LDP group (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RDP reduced LOS (ODP: Odds = 6.5 [p = 0.0001] and LDP: Odds = 2.1 [p = 0.036]) and total cost (ODP: Odds = 5.7 [p = 0.002] and LDP: Odds = 2.8 [p = 0.042]) independently of all demographics and illness covariates. CONCLUSIONS: A robotic approach is associated with reduced length of stay and cost compared to open and laparoscopic procedures.

The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Conversion from minimally invasive to open colorectal surgery remains common and costly. Robotic colorectal surgery is associated with lower rates of conversion than laparoscopy, but institutions and payers remain concerned about equipment and implementation costs. Recognizing that reimbursement reform and bundled payments expand perspectives on cost to include the entire surgical episode, we evaluated the role of minimally invasive conversion in total payments. METHODS: This is an observational study from a linked data registry including clinical data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative and payment data from the Michigan Value Collaborative between July 2012 and April 2015. We evaluated colorectal resections initiated with open and minimally invasive approaches, and compared reported risk-adjusted and price-standardized 30-day episode payments and their components. RESULTS: We identified 1061 open, 1604 laparoscopic, and 275 robotic colorectal resections. Adjusted episode payments were significantly higher for open operations than for minimally invasive procedures completed without conversion ($19,489 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). The conversion rate was significantly higher with laparoscopic than robotic operations (15.1 vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Adjusted episode payments for minimally invasive operations converted to open were significantly higher than for those completed by minimally invasive approaches ($18,098 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). Payments for operations completed robotically were greater than those completed laparoscopically ($16,949 vs. $15,250, p < 0.001), but the difference was substantially decreased when conversion to open cases was included ($16,939 vs. $15,699, p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Episode payments for open colorectal surgery exceed both laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive options. Conversion to open surgery significantly increases the payments associated with minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Because conversion rates in robotic colorectal operations are half of those in laparoscopy, the excess expenditures attributable to robotics are attenuated by consideration of the cost of conversions.

Economic Impact of Laparoscopic Conversion to Open in Left Colon Resections.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies have shown economic and clinical advantages of laparoscopic left-colon resections. Laparoscopic conversion to open is an important surgical outcome. We estimated conversion incidence, identified risk factors, and measured the clinical and economic impact. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we used the Premier Perspective database to analyze left-sided colectomies from 2009 to 2014. Operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), total hospital cost (2014 U.S. dollars); along with incidence of in-hospital clinical outcomes (anastomotic leak surrogate [Leak], transfusion, and mortality) were evaluated. Multivariable models accounting for hospital clustering were used to identify conversion risk factors and analyze the effect of conversion on economic and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 41,417 patients: 8,468 left hemicolectomy and 32,949 sigmoidectomy were identified. Lap-Conversion incidence was 13.3% (95% CI, 12.9-13.7). Adjusted mean LOS (±SE) days was significantly lower for the Lap-Successful group (4.9 compared with Lap-Conversion 6.8 and Open-Planned 7.0), but Lap-Conversion and Open-Planned had similar LOS. Adjusted mean cost was higher for Lap-Conversion $20,165 compared to Open-Planned $18,797; but this difference was smaller than the cost savings for Lap-Successful $16,206 ± $219. Open-Planned had lower odds of Leak compared to Lap-Conversion. Open-Planned and Lap-Conversion had similar odds of transfusion and mortality. Conversion risk factors included inflammatory bowel disease and left-hemicolectomy. Colorectal specialists were associated with 38% decreased odds of conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Successful laparoscopic surgery was the most cost effective, with decreased LOS and odds of blood transfusion, leak surrogate, and mortality. Conversion was the most expensive and had increased odds of leak surrogate, but similar LOS compared to Open-Planned. The beneficial effect size of successful laparoscopic surgery was larger than the negative effect of conversion compared to Open-Planned.

Rendezvous technique for cholecystocholedochal lithiasis in octogenarians: is it as effective as in younger patients, or should endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy be preferred?

BACKGROUND: The treatment of cholecystocholedochal lithiasis (CCL) requires cholecystectomy and common bile duct (CBD) clearance, which can be achieved surgically or with a combination of surgery and endoscopy. The latter includes a two-stage-approach-preoperative retrograde cholangiography (ERC) and sphincterotomy (ST) followed by delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), or vice versa-or a one-stage-approach-the rendezvous technique (RVT), where ERC, ST, and LC are performed during the same procedure. No data on the use of RVT in octogenarians have been reported in the literature so far. The study aims to show whether the RVT is as effective in elderly as in younger patients. Moreover, results of RVT are compared with those of a two-stage sequential treatment (TSST) in octogenarians, to identify the best approach to such a population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected data of 131 consecutive patients undergoing RVT for biliary tract stone disease were retrospectively analyzed. Two analyses were performed: (1) results of RVT (operative time, conversion rate, CBD clearance, morbidity/mortality, hospital stay, costs, and need for further endoscopy) were compared between octogenarians and younger patients, and (2) results of RVT in the elderly were compared with those of 27 octogenarians undergoing TSST for CCL. RESULTS: Octogenarians undergoing RVT were in poorer general condition (P<.0001) and had a higher conversion rate (P<.0001) and a longer hospital stay (P<.007) than younger patients. No differences in the rates of CBD clearance, surgery-related morbidity, mortality, and costs were recorded. Although octogenarians undergoing RVT were in poorer general condition than those undergoing TSST, the results of the two approaches were similar. CONCLUSIONS: RVT in the elderly seems to be as cost-effective as in younger patients; nevertheless, it may lead to a higher conversion rate and longer hospital stay. In octogenarians, RVT is not inferior to TSST in the treatment of CCL even for patients in poor condition.