Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy: Is it worth it?

BACKGROUND: Reprocessed (re-sterilized) bipolar energy devices represent one effort to reduce operative costs. METHODS: Between January 2014 to October 2015, 76 patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy using a reprocessed bipolar energy device and were case-matched to 76 patients from a prospectively-maintained database from November 2012 to December 2013 when an identical, new device was used. Outcomes included reprocessed device safety, efficiency and hospital costs. RESULTS: There was no difference in patient demographics, operative times or failed pedicle ligation requiring intervention between groups (all P > 0.05). In 19.7% of reprocessed cases, the surgeon opened an additional new device after dissatisfaction with the reprocessed instrument. Operating room costs and total costs were less for the reprocessed device group (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Reprocessed bipolar energy devices were associated with savings in operative expenses, however, larger studies are warranted due to the high surgeon dissatisfaction regarding safety concerns with the reprocessed equipment.

Evaluation of the economic and clinical feasibility of introducing rigid endoscopy and laparoscopy to a small animal general practice.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the economic and clinical feasibility of introducing rigid endoscopy and laparoscopy to a small animal general practice. DESIGN Prospective study. SAMPLE A single 2-veterinarian small animal practice in southern California. PROCEDURES In early 2012, endoscopic equipment was purchased, and both veterinarians in the practice undertook training in rigid endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures. Subsequently, information for client-owned animals that underwent endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures during a 12-month period (2012 to 2013) was collected. Cost of equipment and training, revenue generated, specific procedures performed, surgery time, complications, and client satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS 78 endoscopic procedures were performed in 73 patients, including 71 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 rabbit. Cost of endoscopic and laparoscopic equipment and training in the first year was $14,809.71; most equipment was financed through a 5-year lease at a total cost of $57,507.70 ($ 10,675.20/y). Total revenue generated in the first year was $50,423.63. The most common procedures performed were ovariectomy (OVE; n = 49), prophylactic gastropexy (6), and video otoscopy (12). Mean ± SD surgery times for OVE (n = 44) and for OVE with gastropexy (5) were 63.7 ± 19.7 minutes and 73.0 ± 33.5 minutes; respectively. Twelve of 54 patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures experienced minor intraoperative complications. Conversion to laparotomy was not required in any patient. There were no major complications. All 49 clients available for follow-up were satisfied. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE With appropriate training and equipment, incorporation of basic rigid endoscopy and laparoscopy may be feasible in small animal general practice. However, results of the present study are not applicable to all veterinarians and practice settings, and patient safety considerations should always be paramount.

Cost Comparison of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Training Completed With Standard Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Equipment versus Low-Cost Equipment.

OBJECTIVE: Training for the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) skills test can be expensive. Previous work demonstrated that training on an ergonomically different, low-cost platform does not affect FLS skills test outcomes. This study compares the average training cost with standard FLS equipment and medical-grade consumables versus training on a lower cost platform with non-medical-grade consumables. DESIGN: Subjects were prospectively randomized to either the standard FLS training platform (n = 19) with medical-grade consumables (S-FLS), or the low-cost platform (n = 20) with training-grade products (LC-FLS). Both groups trained to proficiency using previously established mastery learning standards on the 5 FLS tasks. The fixed and consumable cost differences were compared. SETTING: Training occurred in a surgical simulation center. PARTICIPANTS: Laparoscopic novice medical student and resident physician health care professionals who had not completed the national FLS proficiency curriculum and who had performed less than 10 laparoscopic cases. RESULTS: The fixed cost of the platform was considerably higher in the S-FLS group (S-FLS, $3360; LC-FLS, $879), and the average consumable training cost was significantly higher for the S-FLS group (S-FLS, $1384.52; LC-FLS, $153.79; p < 0.001). The LC-FLS group had a statistically discernable cost reduction for each consumable (Gauze $9.24 vs. $0.39, p = 0.002; EndoLoop $540.00 vs. $40.60, p < 0.001; extracorporeal suture $216.45 vs. $25.20, p < 0.001; intracorporeal suture $618.83 vs. $87.60, p < 0.001). The annual fixed and consumable cost to train 5 residents is $10,282.60 in the S-FLS group versus $1647.95 in the LC-FLS group. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the average cost to train a single trainee to proficiency using a lower fixed-cost platform and non-medical-grade equipment results in significant financial savings. A 5-resident program will save approximately $8500 annually. Residency programs should consider adopting this strategy to reduce the cost of FLS training.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis at Rwanda Military Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is first-line treatment for uncomplicated gallstone disease in high-income countries due to benefits such as shorter hospital stays, reduced morbidity, more rapid return to work, and lower mortality as well-being considered cost-effective. However, there persists a lack of uptake in low- and middle-income countries. Thus, there is a need to evaluate laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with an open approach in these settings. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to evaluate laparoscopic and open cholecystectomies at Rwanda Military Hospital (RMH), a tertiary care referral hospital in Rwanda. Sensitivity and threshold analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy costs and effectiveness values were $2664.47 with 0.87 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and $2058.72 with 0.75 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for laparoscopic over open cholecystectomy was $4946.18. Results are sensitive to the initial laparoscopic equipment investment and number of cases performed annually but robust to other parameters. The laparoscopic intervention is more cost-effective with investment costs less than $91,979, greater than 65 cases annually, or at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds greater than $3975/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At RMH, while laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be a more effective approach, it is also more expensive given the low caseload and high investment costs. At commonly accepted WTP thresholds, it is not cost-effective. However, as investment costs decrease and/or case volume increases, the laparoscopic approach may become favorable. Countries and hospitals should aspire to develop innovative, low-cost options in high volume to combat these barriers and provide laparoscopic surgery.

Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety.

BACKGROUND: The quality of instruments and surgical expertise in minimally invasive surgery has developed markedly in the last two decades. Attention is now being turned to ways to allow surgeons to adopt more cost-effective and environmental-friendly approaches. This review explores current evidence on the cost and environmental impact of reusable versus single-use instruments. In addition, we aim to compare their quality, functionality and associated clinical outcomes. METHOD: The Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant literature from January 2000 to May 2015. Subject headings were Equipment Reuse/, Disposable Equipment/, Cholecystectomy/, Laparoscopic/, Laparoscopy/, Surgical Instruments/, Medical Waste Disposal/, Waste Management/, Medical Waste/, Environmental Sustainability/ and Sterilization/. RESULTS: There are few objective comparative analyses between single-use versus reusable instruments. Current evidence suggests that limiting use of disposal instruments to necessity may hold both economical and environmental advantages. Theoretical advantages of single-use instruments in quality, safety, sterility, ease of use and importantly patient outcomes have rarely been examined. Cost-saving methods, environmental-friendly methods, global operative costs, hidden costs, sterilization methods and quality assurance systems vary greatly between studies making it difficult to gain an overview of the comparison between single-use and reusable instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Further examination of cost comparisons between disposable and reusable instruments is necessary while externalized environmental costs, instrument function and safety are also important to consider in future studies.

Design and Performance of a Low-Cost Telemetric Laparoscopic Tactile Grasper.

Tactile feedback is completely lost in laparoscopic surgery, which would provide information about tissue compliance, texture, structural features, and foreign bodies. We developed a system with artificial tactile feedback for laparoscopic surgery that consists of a telemetric tactile laparoscopic grasper, a remote PC with customized software, and a commercial video-mixer. A standard, nonsensorized laparoscopic grasper was customized to allow the integration of a tactile sensor and its electronics. The tactile sensor and the electronics module were designed to be detachable from the instrument. These parts are lightweight and wireless, thus not impeding the use of the device as surgical instrument. The remaining system components used to generate visualization of the tactile data do not influence the workflow in the operating room. The overall system design of the described instrumentation allows for easy implementation in an operating room environment. The fabrication of the tactile sensor is relatively easy and the production costs are low. With this telemetric laparoscopic grasper instrument, systematic preclinical studies can be performed in which surgeons execute surgical tasks that are derived from clinical reality. The experience gained from these investigations could then be used to define the requirements for any further development of artificial tactile feedback systems.

Laparoscopic surgery in middle- and low-income countries: gasless lift laparoscopic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Surgically treatable conditions are an increasing burden in low- and middle-income countries, and recent studies suggest they have overtaken the "big three" (malaria, tuberculosis and HIV) as a cause of mortality. AIM: In this context, we have worked to modify standard laparoscopic equipment to allow laparoscopy in remote areas without support services such as bottled gases or disposable instruments. RESULTS: A simple and reliable system of gasless laparoscopy has been developed using robust reusable instruments, widening the potential availability of laparoscopic surgery in remote and rural areas. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, using this equipment, appropriately trained surgeons can provide minimally invasive surgery in even the most remote locations.

Weight-adapted surgical approach for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in pediatric patients using low-cost reusable instrumentation: a prospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in pediatric patients has emerged as a viable alternative to standard laparoscopy. The aim of our investigation was to assess different surgical approaches for LESS, stratifying by weight. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From March 2010 to April 2012 LESS was performed in 42 children. Children weighing below 10 kg underwent LESS through an umbilical incision using two 3-mm trocars and one 5-mm trocar. Patients above 10 kg were operated on using a metal multiuse single-site single port (X-Cone; Karl Storz Endoskope, Tuttlingen, Germany). Conventional straight laparoscopic instruments were used in all cases. RESULTS: Mean age at operation was 100 months (range, 0.25-207 months), and mean weight was 27 kg (range, 3.1-82 kg). Median operating time was 74 minutes (range, 36-300 minutes). Eighteen children underwent LESS using two 3-mm trocars and one 5-mm trocar; 1 case required two 5-mm trocars and one 10-mm trocar. Twenty-three patients were operated on with the multiuse device. All operations were carried out safely in a standard laparoscopic transperitoneal technique with full achievement of the surgical target. In none of the patients was an intraoperative complication noticed. Postoperatively two complications were noted, which resolved spontaneously. CONCLUSIONS: LESS for pediatric patients can be done safely and efficiently with even less trauma than in conventional laparoscopy irrespective of age and weight. However, different surgical approaches have to be considered as disposable single-site ports are not available for infants and small children. To decrease operative expenses, conventional multiuse trocars and a multiuse single-site port were used with conventional laparoscopic instruments.

A randomized, single-blinded pilot study evaluating use of a laparoscope or a cystoscope for cystoscopy during gynecologic surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate time required to perform cystoscopy with a laparoscope or a cystoscope after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Urinary tract symptoms, infection, adverse events, and expense were also evaluated. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blind pilot study (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Suburban private gynecology group practice and local community hospital. SUBJECTS: Sixty-six subjects scheduled to undergo laparoscopic hysterectomy between January and July 2009. INTERVENTION: Either cystoscopy with a laparoscope or a cystoscope. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Subjects were randomized to undergo either form of cystoscopy, and events were reported. Each subject completed self-reported urinary tract symptom questionnaires before surgery and at 2 weeks after surgery. Clean-catch urine samples were obtained before surgery and postoperatively at day 1 and 2 weeks. In the group who underwent laparoscope cystoscopy, a suction-irrigator device, a 5-mm needle-nose suction irrigator tip, and a 5-mm 0-degree video laparoscope were required. In the group who underwent traditional cystoscopy, a 70-degree video telescope with a 17F sleeve, irrigation fluid, and a light source were required. Subjects were followed up for 6 weeks postoperatively. Adverse events were minimal, with 1 in the laparoscope group and 6 in the traditional cystoscope group. Two postoperative urinary tract infections occurred in the traditional cystoscopy group. The mean total procedural time for laparoscope cystoscopy of 137 seconds was statistically less (p < .001) compared with the 296 seconds in the traditional cystoscopy group. Improvements in urinary tract symptom scores improved from baseline, but were not statistically significantly different between the groups. Traditional cystoscopy equipment cost approximately $60 more per subject. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that laparoscope cystoscopy is more time-efficient and cost-effective than traditional cystoscopy and that the incidence of urinary tract symptoms, infection, and injury did not increase.

Cost assessment of instruments for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Specially designed surgical instruments have been developed for single-incision laparoscopic surgery, but high instrument costs may impede the implementation of these procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the cost of operative implements used for elective cholecystectomy performed as conventional laparoscopic 4-port cholecystectomy or as single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Two consecutive series of patients undergoing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy were assessed: (1) single-incision cholecystectomy using a commercially available multichannel port (n=80) and (2) a modified single-incision cholecystectomy using 2 regular trocars inserted through the umbilicus (n=20) with transabdominal sutures for gallbladder mobilization (puppeteering technique). Patients who underwent conventional 4-port cholecystectomy during the same time period (n=100) were selected as controls. RESULTS: The instrumental cost of the single-incision cholecystectomy using a commercial port was significantly higher (median, $1123) than the cost for conventional 4-port (median $441, P < .0005) and modified single-incision cholecystectomy (median $342, P < .0005). The cost of the modified single-incision procedure was significantly lower than that for the 4-port cholecystectomy (P < .0005). CONCLUSION: The modified single-incision procedure using 2 regular ports inserted through the umbilicus can be performed at lower cost than conventional 4-port cholecystectomy.

Low-cost reusable instrumentation for laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy: assessment in a porcine model.

PURPOSE: To test different sets of prebent instruments and a new reusable access device for laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three surgeons with previous experience in LESS performed 12 nephrectomies in six pigs. In all procedures, a multichannel access device (X-CONE) and a 5-mm extra-long telescope were used. Four sets of prebent instruments with different profiles (S-portal) were tested: Standard (one straight scissors and one curved grasper), Cuschieri, Carus, and Leroy set (each of them consisting of two curved instruments with different configurations). Assessment was performed based on both objective (procedure time; time to manage the pedicle; time to free kidney) and subjective parameters (entry/exit of instruments; triangulation; dissection up/down; dissection lateral; retraction; interdependence). The subjective assessment tool used was a Likert type scale (1 = easy to 5 = prohibitive). The access device was assessed by using objective (time to complete insertion of device after skin incision) and subjective (significant air leakage, movement constraint) parameters. RESULTS: Time to insertion of the X-CONE was <1 minute in all the cases. Surgeons reported significant insufflant leakage in 58% of cases. The procedure was completed in 10/12 (83%) cases. Mean operative time was 8.3 ± 4.2 minutes, being lower for the Carus group (4.5 min) and higher for the standard group (13 min). Among the different sets, the standard one obtained the best mean scores for all subjective parameters. CONCLUSIONS: X-CONE allows easy abdominal access, and its reusable properties represent cost savings for LESS compared with disposable devices. Prebent instruments might also represent attractive low-cost tools for LESS.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus standard laparoscopic simple nephrectomy: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), an attempt to further enhance the cosmetic benefits of minimally invasive surgery while minimizing the potential morbidity associated with multiple incisions, has been developed recently. Our aim was to compare LESS simple nephrectomy (LESS-SN) and conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic simple nephrectomy (CTL-SN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized study that was conducted between December 2008 and September 2009, 27 patients who needed simple nephrectomy were randomized to either LESS-SN or CTL-SN. All procedures in both groups were performed by the first author, who is experienced in laparoscopic surgery. Patient characteristics, perioperative details, and time to return to work were recorded. Postoperative evaluation of pain and use of analgesic medication were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in median operative time (117.5 vs 114 min, P = 0.52), blood loss (50.71 vs 47.15 mL, P = 0.60), transfusion rates (0% for both), and hospitalization time (2.07 vs 2.11 days, P = 0.74) between the LESS-SN and CTL-SN groups. Time to return to normal activities was shorter in the LESS-SN group compared with the CTL-SN group (10.7 vs 13.5 days, P = 0.001). Both the visual analogue scale and the postoperative use of analgesics were significantly lower during postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 in patients who underwent LESS-SN, compared with patients who underwent CTL-SN. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications in both groups. Compared with CTL-SN, LESS-SN was more expensive, but all patients undergoing LESS-SN were very pleased with the cosmetic outcome (no visible scars). CONCLUSION: The early experience described in this study suggests that LESS-SN is a safe and effective alternative to CTL-SN that provides surgeons with a minimally invasive surgical option and the ability to hide the surgical incision within the umbilicus; however, a larger series is necessary to confirm these findings and to determine if there are any benefits in pain, recovery, or cosmesis.

Cost-effective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: There is wide variation in costs, both theatre and ward, for the same operation performed in different hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare the true costs for a large number of consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) cases using re-usable equipment with those from an adjacent trust in which the policy was to use disposable LC equipment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected prospectively between January 2001 and December 2007 inclusive for all consecutive patients undergoing LC by two upper gastrointestinal (UGI) consultants at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. Data were collected for all the instruments used, in particular any additional disposable instruments used at surgeons' preference. Sterilisation costs were calculated for all re-usable instruments. Costs were also obtained from an adjacent NHS trust which adopted a policy of using disposable ports and clip applicators. Disposable equipment such as drapes, insufflation tubing, and camera sheath were not considered as additional costs, since they are common to both trusts and not available in a re-usable form. RESULTS: Over 7 years, a total of 1803 LCs were performed consecutively by two UGI consultants at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. The grand total for 1803 LC cases for the re-usable group, including initial purchasing, was pound89,844.41 (an average of pound49.83 per LC case). The grand total for the disposable group, including sterilisation costs, was pound574,706.25 (an average of pound318.75 per LC case). Thus the saving for the trust using re-usable trocars, ports and clip applicators was pound268.92 per case, pound69,265.98 per annum and pound484,861.84 over 7 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that considerable savings occur with a policy of minimal use of disposable equipment for LC. Using a disposable set, the instrument costs per procedure is 6.4 times greater than the cost of using re-usable LC sets. It behoves surgeons to be cost-effective and to reduce unnecessary expenditure and wastage. There is no evidence to support use of once-only laparoscopic instruments on grounds of patient safety, ease of use or transmission of infection. If the savings identified in this study of two surgeons' work (savings of pound484,861.84 in a 7-year period) was extended not only across the hospital but across the NHS, large savings could be made for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Even greater savings would accrue if the results were extrapolated to cover all laparoscopic surgery of whatever discipline.

A single institution experience of 141 cases of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with cost-reductive measures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) has benefits in terms of cosmesis, less postoperative pain, hospital stay, and early recovery when compared with open radical nephrectomy. One of the major points of concern of this surgery, especially in developing countries, is the additional cost because of the disposable instruments. We present our experience of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with cost-reductive techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 1998 to 2008, 141 patients undergoing cost-reductive LRN using minimal disposable equipment for clinically localized renal tumors were included in the study. Clinical data, including operative and postoperative management and follow-up, were recorded and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: The transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic techniques were performed in 46.8% and 53.2 %, respectively. Overall, the mean operative time was 139.5 min, mean estimated blood loss was 192.3 mL, mean analgesic requirement was 12.69 mg morphine equivalent, and mean hospital stay was 3.6 days. There were eight conversions to open surgery. There were 10 major and 12 minor complications with no deaths. Mean follow-up was 54.2 months with no local recurrence. There were 17 distal recurrences with no port site metastasis. The cost of LRN, using the cost-reductive techniques, was reduced by approximately US $1,900 per case. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-reductive LRN is feasible for the management of clinically localized renal tumors. It provides all the advantages of laparoscopy and can be performed with minimal additional cost, making it more acceptable to the patients, especially in developing countries.

Cost analysis of minimally invasive surgery in a pediatric setting.

AIMS: The aims of this study was to determine whether an active policy of cost curtailment would impact on the theater cost of laparoscopic surgery in a pediatric setting; to document the extent of cost changes over time and to identify factors that adversely influence expenditure; and to investigate whether the surgeon is a significant factor in the price of the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective audit of laparoscopic procedures was performed in a single unit over a 36-month period. Detailed costs of theater inventory for all procedures were compiled on a case-by-case basis and recorded on a database. The cost of six index procedures were collated and changes over the period of the study analyzed. The factors responsible for increased expenditure were flagged and appraised to enable the implementation of cost-saving measures. The prices of the laparoscopic equipment were based on invoiced figures provided by hospital managers, and no long-term outcome measures were taken into account. RESULTS: A total of 179 cases were performed by six surgeons over a 3-year period between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005, with no adverse intraoperative events. The procedures studied in further detail were appendicectomy (n = 50), fundoplication (n = 25), cholecystectomy (n = 12), nephrectomy (n = 10), Fowler Stevens for undescended testes (n = 10), and modified Palomo operations for varicocoele (n = 7). The mean cost of these procedures fell year by year over the period of study but was significant only in appendicectomy (P = 0.017). For this procedure, there was a significant difference in costs between the various surgeons (P = 0.007), but this trend was not noted with the other procedures. There were no major intraoperative events, although 2 patients required conversion owing to technical difficulties posed by the cases. Among the factors that influenced costs were the use of disposables, particularly for hemostasis and suctioning, and an inability to procure reuseable instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of commonly performed laparoscopic procedures are falling year by year. The surgeon is a factor in the costs of some procedures. A cost-saving strategy has not been compromised of patient safety; however, some cost-saving measures, though attractive, are labor intensive and are not practical. An overall commitment to the sensible use of health care resources translates into savings for hospitals, thereby strengthening the case for laparoscopic surgery.

Two-trocar laparoscopic varicocelectomy: cost-reduction surgical technique.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the technique of two-trocar laparoscopic varicocelectomy and compare it with the standard three-trocar laparoscopic technique in terms of effectiveness, morbidity, and cosmesis. METHODS: Two matched groups of patients with left varicocele were recruited. Each group included 30 patients. One group underwent three-trocar and the other two-trocar laparoscopic varicocelectomy. The results of the two approaches were compared. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in terms of mean hospital stay or morbidity between the two-trocar and three-trocar techniques. A significant difference was found in the operative time and proportion of patients needing postoperative parenteral narcotic analgesia in favor of the two-trocar technique. In both approaches, the previously infertile patients had a significant improvement in sperm count and motility (P <0.05). Cosmetically, the trocar wound scars were aesthetically superior using the two-trocar technique. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found between two-trocar and three-trocar laparoscopic varicocelectomy in terms of effectiveness and morbidity. The cost of an extra 5-mm disposable trocar in the three-trocar technique and the improved cosmesis after the two-trocar technique have made us prefer the latter technique.

Disposable laparoscopic surgical instruments and the economic effects of repackaging.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic effects of repackaging disposable laparoscopic surgical instruments. We repacked a total of 28 disposable instruments for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery into one package. The time of preparation of surgical instruments, the amount of medical waste, and other economic effects were compared before and after the repackaging of disposable instruments. The time required for the preparation of surgical instruments was shortened by 22 minutes per operation, and medical waste decreased by 400 g, by repackaging the instruments, resulting in an estimated direct economic saving of $10,000 per year. Indirect economic effects might include savings due to a reduced inventory of surgical instruments and simplified cost-accounting for each operation. It is likely that preparation for surgery can be significantly improved and the cost reduced by repackaging the laparoscopic surgical instruments.

An innovative bipolar instrument for laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Bipolar electrosurgery is an excellent method for obtaining hemostasis at laparoscopy. The present study describes and evaluates a bipolar device that can be more versatile and cost effective in advanced operative procedures than the traditional instrumentation. METHODS: This was a retrospective, case-controlled analysis of bipolar instrumentation with a design classification of II-2. A single surgeon in a private practice setting performed all procedures. Sixteen patients, matched for age and pathology were evaluated by videotape review to determine the comparative efficiency of the BiCOAG bipolar dissector/grasper versus traditional Kleppinger bipolar forceps. Efficiency here is defined as comparative operating times in each group. RESULTS: The number of instrument changes per case was counted because this appeared to be the only variable other than time that differentiated the 2 groups. The BiCOAG bipolar dissector/grasper device group had 4 times fewer instrument changes and significantly decreased operating room times when compared with that of the Kleppinger forceps group. Because cost per unit of operating room time was a constant figure, the decrease in cost that resulted due to the decrease in operating time is considered a cost-effective measure. CONCLUSIONS: The BiCOAG bipolar dissector/grasper is a cost-effective, efficient instrument for use in operative laparoscopic procedures.

The use of stab incisions for instrument access in laparoscopic urological procedures.

PURPOSE: Traditional laparoscopic procedures use expensive cannulas to facilitate the insertion and removal of laparoscopic instruments. We report our experience with limited access stab incisions for the insertion of instruments into the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic urological procedures to minimize the use of disposable cannulas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing laparoscopic urologic procedures using stab incisions, as performed by us, from November 1999 through March 2003 were included. Procedures included nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, varicocelectomy, nephroureterectomy, orchiopexy and adrenal procedures. A single cannula was used for telescope access. In select cases additional cannulas were used for unique instruments or specimen manipulation/extraction. Abdominal wall stab incisions were used for the remaining instruments. Stab incisions were closed with a Steri-Strip (3M Healthcare, St. Paul, Minnesota) at the skin level only. RESULTS: A total of 53 procedures were performed during the study period. Pneumoperitoneum was maintained in all cases. There were no complications associated with the use of stab incisions. A total of 105 cannulas were saved using our technique. At a cost to the patient of dollars 140 per cannula the overall cost saving was dollars 14,700 with an average saving of dollars 277 per case. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic urological procedures can be performed effectively and safely with stab incisions for instrument access. There are significant cost savings related to the elimination of cannulas. We believe that our technique of stab incisions for instrument access is equivalent to the traditional cannula approach and should be used when possible.

The costs and effects of laparoscopic appendectomy in children.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic procedures are performed commonly in children. In general, the cost containment of laparoscopic surgery in children has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of laparoscopic appendectomy with those of open appendectomy. DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial between November 1, 1997, and April 30, 2000. For analysis, cost of supplies, operation room use, and recovery in the hospital and after discharge was evaluated. Costs common to both groups were not determined. SETTING: Operations performed in a university hospital.Patients Eighty-seven children aged 4 to 15 years who underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis. Patients were randomized to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Intervention Laparoscopic appendectomies performed with the same standard set of reusable equipment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost surplus of the laparoscopic procedure and recovery after surgery were evaluated, to determine the costs and effects of laparoscopic appendectomy compared with those of open appendectomy in children. RESULTS: Excess operating and complication costs per procedure were 96 euros (EUR) in laparoscopic appendectomy. The increased operative expenses were offset by a shorter hospital stay, resulting in a marginal difference of 53 EUR in itemized total costs between the 2 procedures (total cost, 1023 EUR in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 970 EUR in the open appendectomy group). After laparoscopic appendectomy, children returned to school and sports earlier than those who had had an open appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy was marginally more expensive, but it allowed earlier return to normal daily activities than open appendectomy.