Staplers vs. loop-ligature: a cost analysis from the hospital payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Presently, there is equipoise regarding the surgical technique used to manage the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. The purpose of this research was to determine whether the routine use of loop ligature, compared to stapling, is cost effective from a hospital payer perspective. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted amongst patients undergoing emergency laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis at two major academic hospitals. In order to eliminate possible systematic bias arising from one technique being preferentially employed with more complex presentations, patients were divided into study groups based on the technique routinely employed by their surgeon, loop ligature (LLA) versus stapler (LSA). Pediatric patients and open appendectomies were excluded. Costs were determined using a previously published model derived from publicly available data from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, in conjunction with local cost data for disposable procurement. Secondary outcomes included operating room time, length of stay, and complication rates. RESULTS: Between Jan 1, 2014 and Dec 31, 2015, 567 adult patients had an emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. In comparing surgeons who routinely employed LLA to LSA, there was a significant decrease in total mean hospital cost with LLA ($1988 ± $143 vs. $2253 ± $99, p = 0.002). In addition, mean disposable cost was reduced for surgeons using LLA ($310 ± $27 vs. $668 ± $26, p < 0.001). This reduction in cost was not associated with a difference in length of stay (1.5 vs. 1.4 days, p = 0.28) or complication rates (8% vs. 10%, p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that surgeons who routinely use loop ligature to secure the appendiceal base during emergency laparoscopic appendectomy offer more cost-effective care compared to stapler users, saving their institution more than $200 per case with no clear disadvantages. A shift from routine use of staplers to loop ligature should result in significant overall cost savings to the hospital.

Acute care surgery: a means for providing cost-effective, quality care for gallstone pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Modern practice guidelines recommend index cholecystectomy (IC) for patients admitted with gallstone pancreatitis (GSP). However, this benchmark has been difficult to widely achieve. Previous work has demonstrated that dedicated acute care surgery (ACS) services can facilitate IC. However, the associated financial costs and economic effectiveness of this intervention are unknown and represent potential barriers to ACS adoption. We investigated the impact of an ACS service at two hospitals before and after implementation on cost effectiveness, patient quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and impact on rates of IC. METHODS: All patients admitted with non-severe GSP to two tertiary care teaching hospitals from January 2008-May 2015 were reviewed. The diagnosis of GSP was confirmed upon review of clinical, biochemical and radiographic criteria. Patients were divided into three time periods based on the presence of ACS (none, at one hospital, at both hospitals). Data were collected regarding demographics, cholecystectomy timing, resource utilization, and associated costs. QALY analyses were performed and incremental cost effectiveness ratios were calculated comparing pre-ACS to post-ACS periods. RESULTS: In 435 patients admitted for GSP, IC increased from 16 to 76% after implementing an ACS service at both hospitals. There was a significant reduction in admissions and emergency room visits for GSP after introduction of ACS services (p < 0.001). There was no difference in length of stay or conversion to an open operation. The implementation of the ACS service was associated with a decrease in cost of $1162 per patient undergoing cholecystectomy, representing a 12.6% savings. The time period with both hospitals having established ACS services resulted in a highly favorable cost to quality-adjusted life year ratio (QALY gained and financial costs decreased). CONCLUSIONS: ACS services facilitate cost-effective management of GSP. The result is improved and timelier patient care with decreased healthcare costs. Hospitals without a dedicated ACS service should strongly consider adopting this model of care.