Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution. METHODS: Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs. RESULTS: 298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

A Protocol for Reducing Intensive Care Utilization After Craniotomy: A 3-Year Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Craniotomy patients have traditionally received intensive care unit (ICU) care postoperatively. Our institution developed the "Non-Intensive CarE" (NICE) protocol to identify craniotomy patients who did not require postoperative ICU care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the longitudinal impact of the NICE protocol on postoperative length of stay (LOS), ICU utilization, readmissions, and complications. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, our institution's electronic medical record was queried to identify craniotomies before protocol deployment (May 2014-May 2018) and after deployment (May 2018-December 2021). The primary end points were average postoperative LOS and ICU utilization; secondary end points included readmissions, reoperation, and postoperative complications rate. End points were compared between pre- and postintervention cohorts. RESULTS: Four thousand eight hundred thirty-seven craniotomies were performed from May 2014 to December 2021 (2302 preprotocol and 2535 postprotocol). Twenty-one percent of postprotocol craniotomies were enrolled in the NICE protocol. After protocol deployment, the overall postoperative LOS decreased from 4.0 to 3.5 days ( P = .0031), which was driven by deceased postoperative LOS among protocol patients (average 2.4 days). ICU utilization decreased from 57% of patients to 42% ( P < .0001), generating ∼$760 000 in savings. Return to the ICU and complications decreased after protocol deployment. 5.8% of protocol patients had a readmission within 30 days; none could have been prevented through ICU stay. CONCLUSION: The NICE protocol is an effective, sustainable method to increase ICU bed availability and decrease costs without changing outcomes. To our knowledge, this study features the largest series of patients enrolling in an ICU utilization reduction protocol. Careful patient selection is a requirement for the success of this approach.

Episode-based cost reduction for endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Effective strategies to reduce costs associated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain elusive for many medical centers. In this study, targeted interventions to reduce inpatient EVAR costs were identified and implemented. METHODS: From June 2015 to February 2016, we analyzed the EVAR practice at a high-volume academic medical center to identify, to rank, and ultimately to reduce procedure-related costs. In this analysis, per-patient direct costs to the hospital were compared before (September 2013-May 2015) and after (March 2016-January 2017) interventions were implemented. Improvement efforts concentrated on three categories that accounted for a majority of costs: implants, rooming costs, and computed tomography scans performed during the index hospitalization. RESULTS: Costs were compared between 141 EVAR procedures before implementation (PRE period) and 47 EVAR procedures after implementation (POST period). Based on data obtained through the Society for Vascular Surgery EVAR Cost Demonstration Project, it was determined that implantable device costs were higher than those at peer institutions. New purchasing strategies were implemented, resulting in a 30.8% decrease in per-case device costs between the PRE and POST periods. Care pathways were modified to reduce use of and costs for computed tomography scans obtained during the index hospitalization. Compared with baseline, per-case imaging costs decreased by 92.9% (P < .001), including a 99.0% (P = .001) reduction in postprocessing costs. Care pathways were also implemented to reduce preprocedural rooming for patients traveling long distances the day before surgery, resulting in a 50% decrease in utilization rate (35.4% PRE to 17.0% POST; P = .021), without having a significant impact on median postprocedural length of stay (PRE, 2 days [interquartile range, 1-11 days]; POST, 2 days [1-7 days]; P = .185). Medication costs also decreased by 38.2% (P < .001) as a hospital-wide effort. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive costs associated with EVAR threaten the sustainability of these procedures in health care organizations. Targeted cost reduction efforts can effectively reduce expenses without compromising quality or limiting patients' access.

Association measures of claims-based algorithms for common chronic conditions were assessed using regularly collected data in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Although claims data are widely used in medical research, their ability to identify persons' health-related conditions has not been fully justified. We assessed the validity of claims-based algorithms (CBAs) for identifying people with common chronic conditions in a large population using annual health screening results as the gold standard. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using a longitudinal claims database (n = 523,267) combined with annual health screening results, we defined the people with hypertension, diabetes, and/or dyslipidemia by applying health screening results as their gold standard and compared them against various CBAs. RESULTS: By using diagnostic and medication code-based CBAs, sensitivity and specificity were 74.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.2%-74.8%) and 98.2% (98.2%-98.3%) for hypertension, 78.6% (77.3%-79.8%) and 99.6% (99.5%-99.6%) for diabetes, and 34.5% (34.2%-34.7%) and 97.2% (97.2%-97.3%) for dyslipidemia, respectively. Sensitivity did not decrease substantially for hypertension (65.2% [95% CI, 64.9%-65.5%]) and diabetes (73.0% [71.7%-74.2%]) when we used the same CBAs without limiting to primary care settings. CONCLUSION: We used regularly collected data to obtain CBA association measures, which are applicable to a wide range of populations. Our framework can be a basis of the validity assessment of CBAs for identifying persons' health-related conditions with regularly collected data.

Patient-Reported Assessment of Functional Gait Outcomes following Superior Gluteal Artery Perforator Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Harvesting the superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flap involves dissection of vessels through the gluteal muscle, potentially compromising gait and ambulation. We compared patient-reported gait and ambulation problems between SGAP flap and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstructions. METHODS: Forty-three patients who underwent bilateral free flap breast reconstruction (17 SGAP, 26 DIEP) participated in the study. The Lower Extremity Functional Score (LEFS) was administered with a supplementary section evaluating gait, balance, fatigue, and pain. Patients evaluated how they felt 2 months postoperatively and at time of survey administration. Multivariate regressions were fit to assess association between type of reconstruction and self-reported lower extremity function controlling for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Although there was no significant difference in overall LEFS between the cohorts on the date of survey, the SGAP patients reported greater difficulty performing the following activities after surgery (P < 0.05): work, usual hobbies, squatting, walking a mile, walking up stairs, sitting for an hour, running, turning, and hopping. The SGAP patients also reported easier fatigue (P < 0.01) both during the early postoperative period and on the date of survey. CONCLUSIONS: SGAP flap surgery causes no statistically significant differences in overall LEFS. However, SGAP patients did report donor-site morbidity with decreased ability to perform certain activities and increased fatigue and pain in the longer follow-up period. We feel that patients should be educated regarding gait issues and undergo physical therapy during the early postoperative period.