Economic Analysis of AbClo, a Novel Abdominal Fascia Closure Device, for Patients With an Open Abdomen Following Trauma or Acute Abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Open Abdomen (OA) cases represent a significant surgical and resource challenge. AbClo is a novel non-invasive abdominal fascial closure device that engages lateral components of the abdominal wall muscles to support gradual approximation of the fascia and reduce the fascial gap. The study objective was to assess the economic implications of AbClo compared to negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) alone on OA management. METHODS: We conducted a cost-minimization analysis using a decision tree comparing the use of the AbClo device to NPWT alone among patients with midline laparotomy for trauma or acute abdominal surgery who were ineligible for primary fascial closure. The time horizon was limited to the length of the inpatient hospital stay, and costs were considered from the perspective of the US Medicare payer. Clinical effectiveness data for AbClo was obtained from a randomized clinical trial. Cost data was obtained from the published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. The primary outcome was incremental cost. RESULTS: The mean cumulative costs per patient were $76 582 for those treated with NPWT alone and $70,582 for those in the group treated with the AbClo device. Compared to NPWT alone, AbClo was associated with lower incremental costs of -$6012 (95% CI -$19 449 to +$1996). The probability that AbClo was cost-savings compared to NPWT alone was 94%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of AbClo is an economically attractive strategy for management of OA in in patients with midline laparotomy for trauma or acute abdominal surgery who were ineligible for primary fascial closure.

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

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

A prospective comparison of costs between robotics, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in endometrial cancer among women with Class III obesity or higher.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the immediate operating room (OR), inpatient, and overall costs between three surgical modalities among women with endometrial cancer (EC) and Class III obesity or higher. METHODS: A multicentre prospective observational study examined outcomes of women, with early stage EC, treated surgically. Resource use was collected for OR costs including OR time, equipment, and inpatient costs. Median OR, inpatient, and overall costs across surgical modalities were analyzed using an Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test among patients with BMI ≥ 40. RESULTS: Out of 520 women, 103 had a BMI ≥ 40. Among women with BMI ≥ 40: median OR costs were $4197.02 for laparotomy, $5524.63 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $7225.16 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p < 0.001) and median inpatient costs were $5584.28 for laparotomy, $3042.07 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $1794.51 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the median overall costs: $10 291.50 for laparotomy, $8412.63 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $9002.48 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p = 0.185). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in overall costs between the three surgical modalities in patient with BMI ≥ 40. Given the similar costs, any form of minimally invasive surgery should be promoted in this population.

Emergency General Surgery Procedures and Cost of Care for Older Adults in the State of Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (OAs) ≥ 65 years of age, representing the fastest growing segment in the United States, are anticipated to require a greater percentage of emergency general surgery procedures (EGSPs) with an associated increase in health care costs. The aims of this study were to identify the frequency of EGSP and charges incurred by OA compared to their younger counterparts in the state of Maryland. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission from 2009 to 2018 was undertaken. Patients undergoing urgent or emergent ESGP were divided into 2 groups (18-64 years and ≥65 years). Data collected included demographics, APR-severity of illness (SOI), APR-risk of mortality (ROM), the EGSP (partial colectomy [PC], small bowel resection [SBR], cholecystectomy, operative management of peptic ulcer disease, lysis of adhesions, appendectomy, and laparotomy), length of stay (LOS), and hospital charges. P-values (P < .05) were significant. RESULTS: Of the 181,283 patients included in the study, 55,401 (38.1%) were ≥65 years of age. Older adults presented with greater APR-SOI (major 37.7% vs 21.3%, extreme 5.2% vs 9.3%), greater APR-ROM (major 25.3% vs 8.7%, extreme 22.3% vs 5.3%), underwent PC (24.5% vs 10.9%) and SBR (12.8% vs 7.0%) more frequently, and incurred significantly higher median hospital charges for every EGSP, consistently between 2009 and 2018 due to increased LOS and complications when compared to those ≤65 years of age. CONCLUSION: These findings stress the need for validated frailty indices and quality improvement initiatives focused on the care of OAs in emergency general surgery to maximize outcomes and optimize cost.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Minimally Invasive Colectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy. BACKGROUND: The use of robotic-assisted colon surgery is increasing. Robotic technology is more expensive and whether a robotically assisted approach is cost-effective remains to be determined. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the 1-year costs and quality-adjusted time between robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy. Model inputs were derived from available literature for costs, quality of life (QOL), and outcomes. Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the effect of clinically reasonable variations in the inputs on our results. RESULTS: Open colectomy cost more and achieved lower QOL than robotic and laparoscopic approaches. From the societal perspective, robotic colectomy costs $745 more per case than laparoscopy, resulting in an ICER of $2,322,715/QALY because of minimal differences in QOL. From the healthcare sector perspective, robotics cost $1339 more per case with an ICER of $4,174,849/QALY. In both models, laparoscopic colectomy was more frequently cost-effective across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses suggest robotic colectomy becomes cost-effective at $100,000/QALY if robotic disposable instrument costs decrease below $1341 per case, robotic operating room time falls below 172 minutes, or robotic hernia rate is less than 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic colectomy are more cost-effective than open resection. Robotics can surpass laparoscopy in cost-effectiveness by achieving certain thresholds in QOL, instrument costs, and postoperative outcomes. With increased use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery, there is a burden to demonstrate these benefits.

Protocol for a parallel economic evaluation of a trial comparing two surgical strategies in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis: the COOL-cost study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of death in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) remains high despite decades of surgical and antimicrobial research. New management strategies are required to improve outcomes. The Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) trial investigates an open-abdomen (OA) approach with active negative pressure peritoneal therapy. This therapy is hypothesized to better manage peritoneal bacterial contamination, drain inflammatory ascites, and reduce the risk of intra-abdominal hypertension leading to improved survival and decreased complications. The total costs and cost-effectiveness of this therapy (as compared with standard fascial closure) are unknown. METHODS: We propose a parallel cost-utility analysis of this intervention to be conducted alongside the 1-year trial, extrapolating beyond that using decision analysis. Using resource use metrics (e.g., length of stay, re-admissions) from patients at all study sites and microcosting data from patients enrolled in Calgary, Alberta, the mean cost difference between treatment arms will be established from a publicly-funded health care payer perspective. Quality of life will be measured at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively with the Euroqol EQ-5D-5 L and SF-36 surveys. A within-trial analysis will establish cost and utility at 1 year, using a bootstrapping approach to provide confidence intervals around an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. If neither operative strategy is economically dominant, Markov modeling will be used to extrapolate the cost per quality-adjusted life years gained to 2-, 5-, 10-year, and lifetime horizons. Future costs and benefits will be discounted at 1.5% per annum. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve will be generated using Monte Carlo simulation. If all trial outcomes are similar, the primary analysis will default to a cost-minimization approach. Subgroup analysis will be carried out for patients with and without septic shock at presentation, and for patients whose initial APACHE II scores are > 20 versus ≤ 20. DISCUSSION: In addition to an estimate of the clinical effectiveness of an OA approach for SCIAS, an understanding of its cost effectiveness will be required prior to its adoption in any resource-constrained environment. We will estimate this key parameter for use by clinicians and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03163095, registered May 22, 2017.

Laparoscopically Assisted Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement Is not Cost-Effective nor Preventive for Distal Shunt Malfunction.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy for ventriculoperitoneal shunt creation might offer smaller incisions and more reliable placement. We assessed the reliability and cost-effectiveness of this technique compared with mini-laparotomy shunt placement. METHODS: All patients undergoing ventriculoperitoneal shunt creation between November 2013 and September 2017 at a single academic institution were evaluated. Individual cases were assessed for the use of laparoscopy for peritoneal shunt placement (laparoscopy) versus mini-laparotomy for peritoneal shunt placement (open). The direct hospital costs for the laparoscopy and open groups were compared for elective shunt placement from the Vizient database. These direct costs were the proportion of the admission cost attributed to surgery. The primary endpoints included costs and revision of the peritoneal catheter within 12 months of the index procedure. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most cases (n = 40; 58.8%) had been performed with laparoscopy, with 28 performed using an open peritoneal approach. Three patients had required ≥1 distal shunt revision: 2 laparoscopy patients (5.0%; 1 had required a second revision) and 1 open patient (3.6%). No statistically significant differences were found for the patients requiring distal shunt revision between the 2 groups (P = 1.000; Fisher's exact test). The direct cost ($9461) of ventriculoperitoneal shunt creation with laparoscopy was greater than that with an open approach ($8247; P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Both laparoscopy and open peritoneal shunt creation are safe procedures, with a 12-month distal revision rate in the present series of ~4%. Laparoscopy provided no relative improvement in safety or complication avoidance but had resulted in a mean increase in costs of >$1200 per patient.

Cost-Effectiveness of Exploratory Laparotomy in a Regional Referral Hospital in Eastern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Surgical disease increasingly contributes to global mortality and morbidity. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery found that global cost-effectiveness data are lacking for a wide range of essential surgical procedures. This study helps to address this gap by defining the cost-effectiveness of exploratory laparotomies in a regional referral hospital in Uganda. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A time-and-motion analysis was utilized to calculate operating theater personnel costs per case. Ward personnel, administrative, medication, and supply costs were recorded and calculated using a microcosting approach. The cost in 2018 US Dollars (USD, $) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted was calculated based on age-specific life expectancies for otherwise fatal cases. RESULTS: Data for 103 surgical patients requiring exploratory laparotomy at the Soroti Regional Referral Hospital were collected over 8 mo. The most common cause for laparotomy was small bowel obstruction (32% of total cases). The average cost per patient was $75.50. The postoperative mortality was 11.7%, and 7.8% of patients had complications. The average number of DALYs averted per patient was 18.51. The cost in USD per DALY averted was $4.08. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation provides evidence that exploratory laparotomy is cost-effective compared with other public health interventions. Relative cost-effectiveness includes a comparison with bed nets for malaria prevention ($6.48-22.04/DALY averted), tuberculosis, tetanus, measles, and polio vaccines ($12.96-25.93/DALY averted), and HIV treatment with multidrug antiretroviral therapy ($453.74-648.20/DALY averted). Given that the total burden of surgically treatable conditions in DALYs is more than that of malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined, our findings strengthen the argument for greater investment in primary surgical capacity in low- and middle-income countries.

Alvimopan is associated with decreased length of stay for both open and laparoscopic segmental colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Alvimopan has been shown to reduce length of stay after bowel resection. Use remains variable among institutions due to cost and efficacy concerns in laparoscopic surgery. Additionally, alvimopan's effects have not been isolated from other medications within enhanced recovery protocols. The aim of this study was to distinguish the relationship between alvimopan use, length of stay, and cost in both open and laparoscopic segmental colectomies. METHODS: The Vizient dataset was queried to identify patients undergoing open and laparoscopic colectomies from 2015 to 2017. Patient demographics and treatment details were collected. Primary outcomes of interest included duration of stay and total direct costs. RESULTS: In the study, 12,727 patients met inclusion criteria and 3,358 (26.4%) received alvimopan. For both open and laparoscopic groups, alvimopan was associated with decreased length of stay in unadjusted (4.0 vs 6.0 days, P < .01 and 3.0 vs 4.0 days, P < .01, respectively) and adjusted analysis (effect ratio 0.79, P < .01 and 0.85, P < .01, respectively). Alvimopan was associated with a 7% decrease in direct cost after adjustment (effect ratio 0.93, P = .04), with no cost difference in laparoscopic procedures (effect ratio 0.99, P = .71). CONCLUSION: Alvimopan use is associated with decreased length of stay for both open and laparoscopic colon resections, decreased cost in open procedures, and no cost difference for laparoscopic procedures.

Morbidity after surgical management of cervical cancer in low and middle income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate morbidity for patients after the primary surgical management of cervical cancer in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS: The Pubmed, Cochrane, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, LILACS and CINAHL were searched for published studies from 1st Jan 2000 to 30th June 2017 reporting outcomes of surgical management of cervical cancer in LMIC. Random-effects meta-analytical models were used to calculate pooled estimates of surgical complications including blood transfusions, ureteric, bladder, bowel, vascular and nerve injury, fistulae and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included five-year progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). FINDINGS: Data were available for 46 studies, including 10,847 patients from 11 middle income countries. Pooled estimates were: blood transfusion 29% (95%CI 0.19-0.41, P = 0.00, I2 = 97.81), nerve injury 1% (95%CI 0.00-0.03, I2 77.80, P = 0.00), bowel injury, 0.5% (95%CI 0.01-0.01, I2 = 0.00, P = 0.77), bladder injury 1% (95%CI 0.01-0.02, P = 0.10, I2 = 32.2), ureteric injury 1% (95%CI 0.01-0.01, I2 0.00, P = 0.64), vascular injury 2% (95% CI 0.01-0.03, I2 60.22, P = 0.00), fistula 2% (95%CI 0.01-0.03, I2 = 77.32, P = 0.00,), pulmonary embolism 0.4% (95%CI 0.00-0.01, I2 26.69, P = 0.25), and infection 8% (95%CI 0.04-0.12, I2 95.72, P = 0.00). 5-year PFS was 83% for laparotomy, 84% for laparoscopy and OS was 85% for laparotomy cases and 80% for laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical morbidity in cervical cancer in LMIC, which highlights the limitations of the current data and provides a benchmark for future health services research and policy implementation.

The (cost) effectiveness of procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy, a multicentre randomised controlled trial: PROSECCO trial, a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In women with abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids are a frequent finding. In case of heavy menstrual bleeding and presence of submucosal type 0-1 fibroids, hysteroscopic resection is the treatment of first choice, as removal of these fibroids is highly effective. Hysteroscopic myomectomy is currently usually performed in the operating theatre. A considerable reduction in costs and a higher patient satisfaction are expected when procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol (PSA) in an outpatient setting is applied. However, both safety and effectiveness - including the necessity for re-intervention due to incomplete resection - have not yet been evaluated. METHODS: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design and will be performed in the Netherlands. Women > 18 years with a maximum of 3 symptomatic type 0 or 1 submucosal fibroids with a maximum diameter of 3.5 cm are eligible to participate in the trial. After informed consent, 205 women will be randomised to either hysteroscopic myomectomy using procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol in an outpatient setting or hysteroscopic myomectomy using general anaesthesia in a clinical setting in the operating theatre. Primary outcome will be the percentage of complete resections, based on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are cost effectiveness, menstrual blood loss (Pictorial blood assessment chart), quality of life, pain, return to daily activities/work, hospitalization, (post) operative complications and re-interventions. Women will be followed up to one year after hysteroscopic myomectomy. DISCUSSION: This study may demonstrate comparable effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia in a safe and patient friendly environment, whilst achieving a significant cost reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register, number NTR5357 . Registered 11th of August 2015.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Major Hepatectomy: Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness in a High-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: Considering the increasing evidence on the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH), their clinical outcomes and associated costs were herein evaluated compared to open (OMH). METHODS: Major contributors of perioperative expenses were considered. With respect to the occurrence of conversion, a primary intention-to-treat analysis including conversions in the LMH group (ITT-A) was performed. An additional per-protocol analysis excluding conversions (PP-A) was undertaken, with calculation of additional costs of conversion analysis. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five LMH and 61 OMH were included (14.5% conversion rate). At the ITT-A, LMH showed lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and morbidity (global p 0.037, moderate p 0.037), shorter hospital stay (p 0.035), and a lower need for intra- and postoperative red blood cells transfusions (p < 0.001), investigations (p 0.004), and antibiotics (p 0.002). The higher intraoperative expenses (+ 32.1%, p < 0.001) were offset by postoperative savings (- 27.2%, p 0.030), resulting in a global cost-neutrality of LMH (- 7.2%, p 0.807). At the PP-A, completed LMH showed also lower severe complications (p 0.042), interventional procedures (p 0.027), and readmission rates (p 0.031), and postoperative savings increased to - 71.3% (p 0.003) resulting in a 29.9% cost advantage of completed LMH (p 0.020). However, the mean additional cost of conversion was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Completed LMH exhibit a high potential treatment effect compared to OMH and are associated to significant cost savings. Despite some of these benefits may be jeopardized by conversion, a program of LMH can still provide considerable clinical benefits without cost disadvantage and appears worth to be implemented in high-volume centers.

Cost-effectiveness of mini-laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancers: A propensity scoring matching approach.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical technique process innovations are expected to generally incur no additional cost but gain better quality. Whether a mini-laparotomy surgery (MLS) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is more cost effective than conventional open surgery had not been well examined. The objective of this study was to apply cost-effectiveness approaches to investigate the cost effectiveness of adopting MLS compared with open surgery 1 year following resection in CRC patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: A prospective non-randomized cohort study design. SETTING: An academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 224 patients who received elective MLS and 339 who received conventional surgery; after propensity score matching, 212 pairs were included for analysis. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost measures were hospital-index cost and outpatient and inpatient costs within 1 year after discharge. Effectiveness measures were life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs) gained. STATISTICAL METHODS: We calculated incremental costs and effectiveness by differences in these values between MLS and conventional surgery using adjusted predicted estimates. RESULTS: MLS patients had lower rates of blood transfusions, less complication, and shorter post-surgical lengths of stay and more medical cost savings. One-year overall medical costs for MLS patients were TWD 748,269 (USD 24,942) per QALY gained, significant lower than for the comparison group (p-value = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Our findings supported that the less invasive surgical process through MLS not only saved medical costs, but also increased QALYs for surgical treatment in CRC patients.

An evaluation of mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy in the laparoscopic era: a rural experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for the management of symptomatic cholelithiasis and complications of gallstone disease. Mini laparotomy cholecystectomy (MOC) may be a more appropriate option in the resource constrained rural setting due to its widespread applicability and comparable outcome with LC. The study aimed to provide an epidemiological analysis of gallstone disease in the rural population and to evaluate the outcome of MOC in a rural hospital. METHOD: A retrospective chart analysis of 248 patients undergoing cholecystectomy in a rural regional referral hospital in KwaZulu-Natal from January 2009 to December 2013 was undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 248 patients, the majority were females (n = 211, [85%]). The most frequent indications for cholecystectomy included: biliary colic (n = 115, [46.3%]); acute cholecystitis (n = 80, [32.3%]); gallstone pancreatitis (n = 27, [10.8%]). Forty cases (16.1%) were converted to open cholecystectomy (OC). The median operative time was 40 minutes (range18-57). Twenty-three morbidities (9.3%) occurred including: bile leaks (n = 6, [2.4%]); bleeding from drain site (n = 1, [0.4%]), incisional hernia (n = 8 [3.2%]) and wound sepsis (n = 8 [3.2%]). The median length of hospital stay in patients who underwent MOC was 48 hours (range: 24-72 hours) and the median time to return to work was 10 days (range: 4-14 days). There was one mortality in the entire cohort. CONCLUSION: MOC is a safe and feasible operation for symptomatic cholelithiasis when cholecystectomy is indicated. The low operative morbidity and mortality in the context of a high risk patient profile and complicated gallstone disease makes this procedure an alternative to LC where LC is inaccessible.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: the future?

Robotic technology currently offers some technical advantages in pelvic dissection compared with competing minimally invasive techniques, and adoption for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer is rapidly increasing worldwide. While there are some early data demonstrating modest improvement in patient outcomes, benefits in terms of long-term oncological outcomes, as well as potential improvements in surgeon-centered outcomes such as fatigue and repetitive stress injury are actively being investigated. Rapid innovation, with the impending release of several new robotic platforms, is likely to further expand the application of these technologies, improve on current limitations, and reduce capital and consumable costs. It is imperative that, as the technology develops and adoption increases further, clinician and research led programs drive safe implementation with a patient-first approach.

Effect of Time to Operation on Value of Care in Acute Care Surgery.

BACKGROUND: As reimbursement models evolve, there is increasing emphasis on maximizing value-based care for inpatient conditions. We hypothesized that longer intervals between admission and surgery would be associated with worse outcomes and increased costs for acute care surgery patients, and that these associations would be strongest among patients with high-risk conditions. METHODS: We performed a 5-year retrospective analysis of three risk cohorts: appendectomy (low-risk for morbidity and mortality, n = 618), urgent hernia repair (intermediate-risk, n = 80), and laparotomy for intra-abdominal sepsis with temporary abdominal closure (sTAC; high-risk, n = 102). Associations between the interval from admission to surgery and outcomes including infectious complications, mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges were assessed by regression modeling. RESULTS: Median intervals between admission and surgery for appendectomy, hernia repair, and sTAC were 9.3, 13.5, and 8.1 h, respectively, and did not significantly impact infectious complications or mortality. For appendectomy, each 1 h increase from admission to surgery was associated with increased hospital LOS by 1.1 h (p = 0.002) and increased intensive care unit (ICU) LOS by 0.3 h (p = 0.011). For hernia repair, each 1 h increase from admission to surgery was associated with increased antibiotic duration by 1.6 h (p = 0.007), increased hospital LOS by 3.3 h (p = 0.002), increased ICU LOS by 1.5 h (p = 0.001), and increased hospital charges by $1918 (p < 0.001). For sTAC, each 1 h increase from admission to surgery was associated with increased antibiotic duration by 5.0 h (p = 0.006), increased hospital LOS by 3.9 h (p = 0.046), increased ICU LOS by 3.5 h (p = 0.040), and increased hospital charges by $3919 (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Longer intervals from admission to surgery were associated with prolonged antibiotic administration, longer hospital and ICU length of stay, and increased hospital charges, with strongest effects among high-risk patients. To improve value of care for acute care surgery patients, operations should proceed as soon as resuscitation is complete.

Diagnostic staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer treatment: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Accurate preoperative staging helps avert morbidity, mortality, and cost associated with non-therapeutic laparotomy in gastric cancer (GC) patients. Diagnostic staging laparoscopy (DSL) can detect metastases with high sensitivity, but its cost-effectiveness has not been previously studied. We developed a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of preoperative DSL in GC workup. METHODS: Analysis was based on a hypothetical cohort of GC patients in the U.S. for whom initial imaging shows no metastases. The cost-effectiveness of DSL was measured as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Drivers of cost-effectiveness were assessed in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Preoperative DSL required an investment of $107 012 per QALY. In sensitivity analysis, DSL became cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000/QALY when the probability of occult metastases exceeded 31.5% or when test sensitivity for metastases exceeded 86.3%. The likelihood of cost-effectiveness increased from 46% to 93% when both parameters were set at maximum reported values. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of DSL for GC patients is highly dependent on patient and test characteristics, and is more likely when DSL is used selectively where procedure yield is high, such as for locally advanced disease or in detecting peritoneal and superficial versus deep liver lesions.

Costs and quality of life of small-incision open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy - an expertise-based randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers need solid evidence based data on cost differences between alternative surgical procedures for common surgical disorders. We aimed to compare small-incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) concerning costs and health-related quality of life using data from an expertise-based randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Patients scheduled for cholecystectomy were assigned to undergo LC or SIOC performed by surgeons in two different expert groups. Total costs were calculated in USD. Reusable instruments were assumed for the cost analysis. Quality of life was measured using the EuroQol 5-D 3-L (EQ 5-D-3L), at five postoperative time points and calculated to Area Under Curve (AUC) for 1 year postoperatively. Two hospitals participated in the trial, which included both emergency and elective surgery. RESULTS: Of 477 patients that underwent a cholecystectomy during the study period, 355 (74.9%) were randomised and 323 analysed, 172 LC and 151 SIOC patients. Both direct and total costs were less for SIOC than for LC patients. The total costs were 5429 (4293-6932) USD for LC and 4636 (3905-5746) USD for SIOC, P = 0.001. The quality of life index did not differ between the LC and SIOC groups at any time. Median values (25th and 75th percentiles (p25-p75)) for AUC at 1 year were as follows: 349 (337-351) for LC and 349 (338-350) for SIOC. CONCLUSIONS: In this expertise-based randomised controlled trial LC was a more costly procedure and quality of life did not differ after SIOC and LC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00370344, August 30, 2006).

Impact of body mass index and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in women with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and hyperplasia (EH). METHODS: All women with BMI data who underwent surgery for EC or EH from 2008 to 2014 were identified from MarketScan, a healthcare claims database. Differences in 30-day complications and costs were compared between BMI groups and stratified by surgical modality. RESULTS: Of 1112 patients, 35%, 36%, and 29% had a BMI of ≤29, 30-39, and ≥40kg/m2, respectively. Compared to patients with a BMI of 30-39 and ≤29, women with a BMI ≥40 had higher rates of venous thromboembolism (3% vs 0.2% vs 0.3%, p<0.01) and wound infection (7% vs 3% vs 3%, p=0.02). This increase was driven by the subset of patients who had laparotomy and was not seen in those undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Median total costs for women with a BMI ≥40, 30-39, and ≤29 were U.S. $17.3k, $16.8k, and $16.6k respectively (p=0.53). Costs were higher for patients who had laparotomy than those who had MIS across all BMI groups, with the cost difference being highest in morbidly obese women (≥40: $21.6k vs $14.9k, p<0.01; 30-39: $18.9k vs $16.1k, p=0.01; ≤29: $19.3k vs $15k, p<0.01). Patients who had complications had higher costs compared to those who did not, with a higher cost difference in the laparotomy group ($27.7k vs $16.4k, p<0.01) compared to the MIS group ($19.9k vs $15k, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MIS may increase the value of care by minimizing complications and decreasing costs. This may be most pronounced in morbidly obese women.

Considering Value in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of Costs and Outcomes Based on the Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approach for Proctectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare value (outcomes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial. In the era of value-based medicine, costs must be considered along with outcomes. METHODS: Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent proctectomy at our institution between 2010 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery (RS)] on an intent-to-treat basis. Groups were compared by direct costs of hospitalization for the primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were evaluated; 327 were men (67%), median age was 59 (27-93) years, and restorative procedures were performed in 333 (68.2%). Groups were similar in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Significant outcome differences between groups were found in operative and anesthesia times (longer in the RS group), and in estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group). No significant differences were found in short-term oncologic outcomes. Direct cost of the hospitalization for primary resection and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly greater in the RS group. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value. If robotic proctectomy is to be widely applied in the future, the costs of the procedure must be reduced.