Is preparation of a sterile operative field before percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy necessary? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the non-sterile nature of the alimentary tract, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) procedures are often performed after creating a sterile surgical field to reduce infection risk. Our group has previously demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) following PEG performed with or without sterile operative fields. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of working with or without sterile operative fields during PEG. METHODS: A decision tree model of PEG with and without sterile operative fields was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these two methods. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a ceiling willingness to pay threshold assumed of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs were from the perspective of the healthcare system with a time horizon for the model of 90 days. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all model parameters. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, sterile operative field PEG was cost-effective resulting in 0.2225 QALYs at an expected cost of $2,099. PEG procedures without a sterile operative field yielded less QALYs (0.2224) at a higher cost ($2,199) and were dominated. These procedures became cost-effective when the expected cost was < $1618 (e.g., $140 less than sterile operative field PEG) or when the SSI rate was < 1.6% (e.g., 0.2% higher than sterile operative field PEG) while holding all other variables constant. CONCLUSION: PEG procedures performed without a sterile operative field can be cost-effective compared to procedures performed with a sterile operative field if the rates of SSI remain similar. Cost savings from foregoing a sterile operative field appear to be offset if the SSI rate increases > 0.2% above that of sterile operative field PEG procedures.

Cost-effectiveness of per oral endoscopic myotomy relative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.

BACKGROUND: Per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has recently emerged as a viable option relative to the classic approach of laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of esophageal achalasia. In this cost-utility analysis of POEM and LHM, we hypothesized that POEM would be cost-effective relative to LHM. METHODS: A stochastic cost-utility analysis of treatment for achalasia was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of POEM relative to LHM. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective and obtained from our institution's cost-accounting database. The measure of effectiveness was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which were estimated from direct elicitation of utility using a visual analog scale. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty was assessed by bootstrapping the sample and computing the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). RESULTS: Patients treated within an 11-year period (2004-2016) were recruited for participation (20 POEM, 21 LHM). During the index admission, the mean costs for POEM ($8630 ± $2653) and the mean costs for LHM ($7604 ± $2091) were not significantly different (P = 0.179). Additionally, mean QALYs for POEM (0.413 ± 0.248) were higher than that associated with LHM (0.357 ± 0.338), but this difference was also not statistically significant (P = 0.55). The ICER suggested that it would cost an additional $18,536 for each QALY gained using POEM. There was substantial uncertainty in the ICER; there was a 48.25% probability that POEM was cost-effective at the mean ICER. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, there was a 68.31% probability that POEM was cost-effective relative to LHM. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of achalasia, POEM appears to be cost-effective relative to LHM depending on one's willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY.

Best Practices for Robotic Surgery Programs.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Robotic surgical programs are increasing in number. Efficient methods by which to monitor and evaluate robotic surgery teams are needed. METHODS: Best practices for an academic university medical center were created and instituted in 2009 and continue to the present. These practices have led to programmatic development that has resulted in a process that effectively monitors leadership team members; attending, resident, fellow, and staff training; credentialing; safety metrics; efficiency; and case volume recommendations. RESULTS: Guidelines for hospitals and robotic directors that can be applied to one's own robotic surgical services are included with examples of management of all aspects of a multispecialty robotic surgery program. CONCLUSION: The use of these best practices will ensure a robotic surgery program that is successful and well positioned for a safe and productive environment for current clinical practice.