Single-Port vs Conventional Three-Port Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Pulmonary Wedge Resection: Comparison of Postoperative Pain and Surgical Costs.

PURPOSE: Single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) pulmonary wedge resection was reported in 2004. We started using single-port VATS (SPVATS) pulmonary wedge resection in 2017 and compared results between conventional three-port VATS (VATS group) and SPVATS (SPVATS group). METHODS: We identified 145 consecutive patients with VATS group and SPVATS group. Perioperative characteristics including pain and the number of stapler cartridges used were examined as the surgical outcomes, retrospectively. RESULTS: In all, 66 cases of SPVATS group and 79 cases of VATS group pulmonary wedge resection were compared. The rate of epidural anesthesia (p <0.0001) was significantly higher and operative time (p <0.0001) was significantly longer with VATS group than with SPVATS group. The number of stapler cartridges used, duration of drain insertion, and rate of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between groups. Average numerical rating scale (NRS) score on postoperative day 1 and postoperative day 7 (p <0.0001 each), maximum NRS score on postoperative day 7 (p = 0.0082) and amount of 25 mg tramadol (p = 0.0062) were significantly lower in SPVAS group than in VATS group. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that SPVATS pulmonary wedge resection offers better pain control and cost-effectiveness than three-port VATS pulmonary wedge resection. These findings should contribute to the body of evidence for SPVATS.

A Novel Absorbable Stapler Provides Patient-Reported Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Noninferior to Subcuticular Skin Closure: A Prospective, Single-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Deep dermal suturing is critical for scar quality outcomes. The authors evaluated a new, fast medical device for dermal suturing, with the hypothesis of noninferiority with regard to clinical scar and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A prospective, patient-blind, randomized, multicenter noninferiority study in 26 French hospitals was conducted. Patients were randomized 1:1 to suturing with conventional thread or a semiautomatic stapler. The Patient Scar Assessment Scale was rated at 3 months for primary endpoint effectiveness. Secondary endpoints were cost-effectiveness of the two suturing methods, prevalence of complications, suturing/operating time, Observer Scar Assessment Scale and Patient Scar Assessment Scale score, scar aesthetic quality 18 months after surgery, and occupational exposure to blood during surgery. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-four patients were enrolled, 660 were randomized, and 649 constituted the full analysis (stapler arm, n = 324; needle arm, n = 325). Primary endpoint Patient Scar Assessment Scale score in the stapler arm was not inferior to that in the needle arm at 3 months or after 18 months. The mean operating time was 180 minutes in the stapler arm and 179 minutes in the needle arm (p = not significant). The mean suturing time was significantly lower in the stapler arm (p < 0.001). There were seven occupational exposures to blood in the needle arm and one in the stapler arm. The two arms did not differ significantly in terms of complications (p = 0.41). The additional cost of using the device was &OV0556;51.57 for the complete-case population. CONCLUSION: Wound healing outcome was no worse than with conventional suturing using a semiautomatic stapler and associated with less occupational exposure to blood. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

A systematic review on the cost evaluation of two different laparoscopic surgical techniques among 996 appendectomies from a single center.

Acute appendicitis is one of the main indications for urgent surgery representing a high-volume procedure worldwide. The current spending review in Italy (and not only in this country) affects the health service and warrants care regarding the use of different surgical devices. The aim of our study is to perform a cost evaluation, comparing the use of endoloops and staplers in complicated acute appendicitis (phlegmonous and gangrenous), taking into consideration the cost of the device in relation to the management of any associated postoperative complications. We retrospectively evaluated 996 laparoscopic appendectomies of adult patients performed in the Emergency General Surgery-St. Orsola University Hospital in Bologna (Italy). Surgical procedures together with the related choice of using endoloops or staplers were performed by attending surgeons or resident surgeons supervised by a tutor. A systematic review was performed to compare our outcomes with those reported in the literature. In our experience, the routine use of endoloop leads to a real estimated saving of 375€ for each performed laparoscopic appendectomy, even considering post-operative complications. Comparing endoloop and stapler groups, the total number of complications is significantly lower in the endoloop group. Our systematic review confirmed these findings even if the superiority of one technique has not been proved yet. Our analysis shows that the routine use of endoloop is safe in most patients affected by acute appendicitis, even when complicated, and it is a cost-effective device even when taking into consideration extra costs for potential post-operative complications.

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.

Comparison of Polymeric Clips and Endoscopic Staplers for Laparoscopic Appendectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Appendectomy is the most common pediatric surgical procedure. To decrease the cost and environmental impact of single incision pediatric endosurgery (SIPES) appendectomy, we switched from using endoscopic staplers to polymeric clips placed with nondisposable laparoscopic appliers. The aim of this study was to compare the resulting reduction in cost and amount of waste generated per case, as well as to compare the perioperative variables and outcomes in patients in whom clips were used, with those of historical patients in whom staplers were used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review of SIPES appendectomies was performed and patients in whom clips were used were compared with patients in whom staplers were used. Demographic, operative, and clinical data were collected. t-Test, Mann-Whitney test, and chi squared test were used to analyze the data as appropriate. The cost to the hospital of the clips and staplers was compared. The disposable waste generated from clips and the staplers was weighed. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were included: 111 in stapler group and 135 in clip group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and complications. There were no complications related to use of clips. In the clip group, staplers were used in 10% because base of appendix was too large, gangrenous, or perforated and could not be clipped. Use of polymeric clips was less expensive and generated less waste. CONCLUSIONS: Use of polymeric clips for appendectomy is safe and effective, and results are comparable with those of stapling. Based on our data, in 90% of appendectomies, the base of appendix is amenable to clipping. This study supports use of clips over staplers to decrease cost and environmental impact.

Safety and Feasibility of a Lower-Cost Stapler in Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic staplers are integral to bariatric surgery. Their pricing significantly impacts the overall cost of procedures. An independent device company has designed a stapler handle and single-use reloads for cross-compatibility and equivalency with existing manufacturers, at a lower cost. OBJECTIVES: We aim to demonstrate non-inferior function and cross-compatibility of a newly introduced stapler handle and reloads compared to our institution's current stapling system in a large animal survival study. SETTING: University-affiliated animal research facility, USA. METHODS: Matched small bowel anastomoses were created in four pigs, one with each stapler (a total of two per animal). After 14 days, investigators blinded to stapler type evaluated the anastomoses grossly and microscopically. Each anastomosis was scored on multiple measures of healing. Individual parameters were added for a global "healing score." RESULTS: Clinical stapler function and gross quality of anastomoses were similar between stapler groups. Individual scores for anastomotic ulceration, reepithelialization, granulation tissue, mural healing, eosinophilic infiltration, serosal inflammation, and microscopic adherences were also statistically similar. The mean "healing scores" were equal. While this study was underpowered for subtle differences, safe and reliable performance in large animals still supports the feasibility of introducing new devices into human use. CONCLUSIONS: The new stapler system delivers a similar technical performance and is cross-compatible with currently marketed stapling devices. An equivalent quality device at a lower price point should enable case cost reduction, helping to maintain hospital case margin and procedure value in the face of potentially declining reimbursement. This device may provide a safe and functional alternative to currently used laparoscopic surgical staplers.

Comparison of economic and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery with powered versus manual endoscopic surgical staplers.

AIMS: To compare economic and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRY) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) with use of powered vs manual endoscopic surgical staplers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (aged ≥21 years) who underwent LRY or LSG during a hospital admission (January 1, 2012-September 30, 2015) were identified from the Premier Perspective Hospital Database. Use of powered vs manual staplers was identified from hospital administrative billing records. Multivariable analyses were used to compare the following outcomes between the powered and manual stapler groups, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and hospital-level clustering: hospital length of stay (LOS), total hospital costs, medical/surgical supply costs, room and board costs, operating room costs, operating room time, discharge status, bleeding/transfusion during the hospital admission, and 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause readmissions. RESULTS: The powered and manual stapler groups comprised 9,851 patients (mean age = 44.6 years; 79.3% female) and 21,558 patients (mean age = 45.0 years; 78.0% female), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, adjusted mean hospital LOS was 2.1 days for both the powered and manual stapler groups (p = .981). Adjusted mean total hospital costs ($12,415 vs $13,547, p = .003), adjusted mean supply costs ($4,629 vs $5,217, p = .011), and adjusted mean operating room costs ($4,126 vs $4,413, p = .009) were significantly lower in the powered vs manual stapler group. The adjusted rate of bleeding and/or transfusion during the hospital admission (2.46% vs 3.22%, p = .025) was significantly lower in the powered vs manual stapler group. The adjusted rates of 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause readmissions were similar between the groups (all p > .05). Sub-analysis by manufacturer showed similar results. LIMITATIONS: This observational study cannot establish causal linkages. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of patients who underwent LRY or LSG, the use of powered staplers was associated with better economic outcomes, and a lower rate of bleeding/transfusion vs manual staplers in the real-world setting.

Esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy by OrVil™ or hemi-double stapling technique.

AIM: To investigate the feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of two types of anvil insertion techniques for esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. METHODS: This was an open-label prospective cohort study. Laparoscopy-assisted radical total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection was performed in 84 patients with primary non-metastatic gastric cancer confirmed by pre-operative histological examination. Overweight patients were excluded, as well as patients with peritoneal dissemination and invasion of adjacent organs. After total gastrectomy, all patients were randomized into two groups. Patients in Group I underwent esophagojejunostomy using a transorally-inserted anvil (OrVil(TM)), while patients in Group II underwent esophagojejunostomy using the hemi-double stapling technique (HDST). Both types of esophagojejunostomy were performed under laparoscopy. Patients' baseline characteristics, preoperative characteristics, perioperative characteristics, short-term postoperative outcomes and operation cost were compared between the two groups. The primary endpoint was evaluation of the surgical outcome (operating time, time of digestive tract reconstruction and time of anvil insertion) and the medical cost of each operation (operation cost and total cost of hospitalization). The secondary endpoints were time to solid diet, post-surgical hospitalization time, time to defecation, time to ambulation and intra-operative blood loss. In addition, complications were assessed and compared. RESULTS: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy and esophagojejunostomy were successfully performed in all 84 patients, without conversion to laparotomy. There were no significant differences in the operative time and time for total gastrectomy between the two groups (287.8 ± 38.4 min vs 271.8 ± 46.1 min, P = 0.09, and 147.7 ± 31.6 min vs 159.8 ± 33.8 min, P = 0.09, respectively). The time for digestive tract reconstruction and for anvil insertion were significantly decreased in Group II compared with Group I (47.8 ± 12.1 min vs 55.4 ± 15.7 min, P = 0.01, and 12.6 ± 4.7 min vs 18.7 ± 7.5 min, P = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative blood loss (96.4 ± 32.7 mL vs 88.2 ± 36.9 mL, P = 0.28), time to defecation (3.5 ± 0.9 d vs 3.2 ± 1.1 d, P = 0.12), time to ambulation (3.9 ± 0.7 d vs 3.6 ± 1.1 d, P = 0.12), time to solid diet (7.6 ± 1.4 d vs 8.0 ± 2.7 d, P = 0.31) and total hospitalization (10.6 ± 2.6 d vs 10.8 ± 3.5 d, P = 0.80) were similar between the two groups. In addition, the total costs of hospitalization were similar between the two groups (73848.7 ± 11781.0 RMB vs 70870.3 ± 14003.5 RMB, P = 0.296), but operation cost was significantly higher in Group I compared with Group II (32401.9 ± 1981.6 RMB vs 26961.9 ± 2293.8 RMB, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Anvil insertion was faster and easier using the HDST technique compared with OrVil(TM), and was more cost-effective. There was no significant difference in safety.

[Overview of surgical stapling devices].

Surgical stapler allows surgeons to do simultaneous cut and suture quickly in excellent quality. Surgical stapler is currently used widely and has become indispensable tool for thoracic surgery, especially for endoscopic surgery such as thoracoscopic lung lobectomy, although there was some reluctance for use at the dawn of the era of mechanical stapling device. Devices should be used for right place in right manner. There are various kinds of stapling devices and surgeons should follow manufactures' instruction appropriately to avoid possible malfunctions of the devices. Surgeons must be aware of possible risks in use of stapling devices and must learn pitfalls. Stapling devices do and will continue to be evolved, and surgeons have to keep the know-how updated.

Thulium laser versus staplers for anatomic pulmonary resections with incomplete fissures: negative results of a randomized trial.

AIMS: This randomized trial evaluated the feasibility and safety of thulium 2010-nm laser to perform anatomic lung resections in patients with incomplete fissures, as compared to mechanical staplers with or without sealants. STUDY DESIGN: Seventy-two patients scheduled for segmentectomy or lobectomy were enrolled. After intraoperative confirmation of the extent of resection and incomplete fissures (Craig type 2, 3 or 4), they were randomized and allocated to one of the following arms: laser resection by thulium (group A) or standard resection with mechanical staplers with or without sealants (group B). The primary endpoints of the study included analysis of intraoperative and postoperative course, and costs. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were assigned to group A (32 lobectomies, 6 segmentectomies) and 34 to group B (31 lobectomies, 3 segmentectomies). No 30-day mortality was observed. Median operative times were 145.0 minutes (group A) and 142.5 minutes (group B, P = 0.83). The median time to drainage removal was 5 days (group A) and 4 days (group B), while the median length of hospital stay was the same (7 days). Prolonged air leaks >7 days were observed in 12 patients of group A (32%) and 10 patients of group B (29%, P = 0.46). Unpredictable late pneumothorax occurred in 3 patients of group A (2 readmissions, need for 1 repeat thoracotomy). Cost analysis demonstrated an intraoperative advantage for group A (mean 807 ± 212 euro) versus group B (mean 1,047+/-276 euro, P <0.0001), but the differences in total costs could be due to chance (P = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The use of laser to complete fissures can lead to late pneumothorax, even in the absence of postoperative air leaks. Moreover, the use of laser to complete fissures did not prove to reduce overall costs. Trial Registration Identification Number: 41/10 (IRB00001457 - FWA00001798 - IORG0001063).

Staplers versus hand-sewing for pulmonary lobectomy: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Division of the parenchymal lung for lobectomy is performed in patients who have an incomplete fissure. A stapler device can reduce postoperative air leak, but it is expensive. OBJECTIVE: to investigate the advantage of using a stapler, in terms of postoperative air leak and cost, compared to hand-sewn techniques. METHOD: A Non-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand, from November 15, 2011 to September 30, 2012. Fifty-three adult patients were randomized to undergo a hand-sewn technique (27 patients) or stapler closure (26 patients). RESULTS: Postoperative air leak in the stapler group was less than that in the hand-sewn group (7.7% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.044), and the duration of air leak in the stapler group was significantly shorter than that in the hand-sewn group (1.0 vs. 13.4 days, p = 0.032). The cost of treatment was not significantly different between groups; however, the total cost in the stapler group was less than that in the hand-sewn group (mean difference 4454 Thai baht (US$144.75). CONCLUSION: A stapler reduces postoperative air leaks and the duration of air leaks. Furthermore, the total cost of treatment was comparable. Therefore, using staples may provide substantial financial benefits.

Validation of the laparoscopically stapled approach as a standard technique for left lateral segment liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is the most common type of anatomic laparoscopic liver resection performed, accounting for 20 % of all laparoscopic hepatectomies. Because there has been no standardized surgical technique for laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS), we offer an established operation: laparoscopically stapled left lateral sectionectomy (LSLLS). Our aim was to perform a case-controlled study of LSLLS with traditional (without vascular staplers) laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (TLLLS), validating the standardization and reproducibility of LSLLS. METHODS: From February 2009 to December 2011, a total of 49 LSLLSs were performed. The results were compared with 33 cohort-matched TLLLSs from an earlier time period. Ordered sample cluster analysis was used to determine the learning curve of LSLLS based on the operating time and blood loss. RESULTS: All LSLLS were performed successfully. There were no conversions to laparotomy or hand-assisted laparoscopic resection. Two endoscopic linear staplers were used in each case. Despite a higher hospital cost ($10,892 ± $944 vs. $8,962 ± $943, p < 0.05), LSLLS compared favorably with TLLLS regarding operating time (103 ± 21 vs. 151 ± 32 min, p < 0.05) and blood loss (70.8 ± 41.6 vs. 173.3 ± 131.1 ml, p < 0.05). No specific complications related to laparoscopy were observed. Ordered sample cluster analysis demonstrated a learning curve of 18 cases for LSLLS. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the standardization and reproducibility of LSLLS. We therefore propose LSLLS as the standard technique for lesions located in the left lateral section of the liver.

Transection of the liver parenchyma with an ultrasound dissector or a stapler device: results of a randomized clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative hemorrhage and postoperative bile leakage are severe complications of liver surgery. They may be related to the techniques used to divide the tissue. We designed a randomized clinical trial to compare the cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) and an endoscopic stapler device applied in routine clinical hepatic surgical practice. METHODS: All consecutive patients admitted for elective hepatic resective surgery--at least bisegmentectomy of the liver--were assessed for enrollment in the study. A total of 100 patients were subsequently randomized. There was a good balance between the study groups concerning issues that may be of relevance for the perioperative and postoperative courses. The primary objective of the study was to achieve an approximately 25 % reduction in perioperative blood loss and postoperative bile leakage. Secondary outcome variables were operating time, general postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, and direct medical costs. RESULTS: The amount of perioperative or postoperative blood loss did not differ significantly between the two groups. We observed a trend toward shorter transection and operating time for patients in whom staplers were used, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The postoperative courses were close to identical in the respective study arms with no difference in bile leakage rates or in the total morbidity profiles. The direct medical costs were nonsignificantly lower in the group where staplers were used for liver transection. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the use of endoscopic vascular staplers in liver surgery is feasible and safe. It offers an attractive alternative for division of the liver parenchyma during routine hepatic surgery, being comparable to the use of CUSA without adding extra costs.

Ultrastructural analysis of different-made staplers' staples.

AIM: Recently, Chinese-made mechanical staplers with lower price respect to American-made ones have been introduced in clinical practice. In literature, small case series compare the clinical outcomes of different staplers concluding that the new stapler devices perform as well as the American ones. The aim of this study is to compare with an ultrastructural analysis the staples of different staplers in order to verify the existence of differences that might explain significant price disparity and condition clinical outcomes. METHODS: Each stapler was subjected to morphological analysis, energy dispersive X-Ray spectroscopy, metal release assessment followed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. P-values were considered statistically significant when <0.05. RESULTS: Autosuture staples have square section whereas the other American one and Chinese made staples have round sections. Roughness index and chips presence before and after ageing tests were comparable for all samples except for Ethicon Endo-Surgery stapler. Energy dispersive X-Ray spectroscopy showed that all staplers are made of pure Titanium but Ethicon Endo-Surgery staples are made with an alloy. Metal release analysis release statistically significant differences between samples in simulated body fluid 20 days solution (P=0.002) and in Aquaregia at 14 days solution. Discussion. Stapling devices have became routinely used in gastrointestinal surgery mainly because of operative time reduction. Recently, new Chinese-made mechanical staplers, with significantly lower prices, have been introduced in clinical practice. In literature, there are some studies that compare clinical outcomes of American-made and Chinese-made staplers on small groups of patients but doesn't exist any work which consider structural differences between traditional and new devices. In our study, for the first time, we propose a comparison between two American-made staplers and three Chinese-made staplers which evaluate morphology, metal composition and chemical staples release. CONCLUSION: Our study suggest that there are some ultrastructural differences between commercially available staplers with no correlation to price disparity. More studies are needed to confirm our results and to verify if our findings could condition clinical outcomes.

[Benefits of mechanical suture in our experience]. / Beneficiile utilizarii suturii mecanice în experienta noastrta.

UNLABELLED: The evolution of mechanical suture technology experienced a continuous improvement but the implementation of these devices in current practice of Romanian surgery encountered difficulties related mostly to increased costs. PURPOSE: Review of casuistic related to the use of mechanical suture devices. METHODS: We studied the casuistic between 2008 and July 2011. More parameters were analyzed compared to cases in which manual suture was used. RESULTS: 74 patients benefited from using mechanical suture. Circular staplers EAEC type were used in 53 cases, TA staplers in 48 cases and Endo GIA in 19 cases. Operations performed were: 44 colo-rectal anastomoses (2 laparoscopic), 9 eso-jejunal anastomoses, 17 gastric resections, 2 duodenal stump closures and 2 rectal stump closures. One (2.56%) colorectal anastomotic fistula was found which led to death. There was a single anastomotic imperfection where we performed ileostomy with favorable evolution. Duration of Dixon's operation was shortened by 36 minutes average. The anastomosis could be lowered to 3 cm from the anal verge. There were 3 late local rectal cancer recurrences, 1 recto-vaginal fistula and 1 rectovesical fistula. There were no anastomotic stenoses. CONCLUSIONS: There were two main advantages of using mechanical anastomosis: (1) the opportunity of palette broadening of laparoscopic operations, (2) the possibility of making safe anastomosis in difficult to access areas (rectum, esophagus). The use of mechanical staplers offers advantages especially in patients with rectal tumors, especially in obese male patients with narrow basin, where we can save many cases from rectal amputation. Staplers bring more comfort to the surgeon offering physical and psychological feeling of a perfect anastomosis. Although staplers cost is high, in selected cases, this disadvantage is offset by reducing the duration of operations, hospitalization and subsequent cost of stomas maintenance.

Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is a complex technology offering technical advantages over conventional methods. Still, clinical outcomes and financial issues have been subjects of debate. Several studies have demonstrated higher costs for robotic surgery when compared to laparoscopy or open surgery. However, other studies showed fewer costly anastomotic complications after robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) when compared to laparoscopy. METHODS: We collected data for our gastric bypass patients who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery from June 1997 to July 2010. Demographic data, BMI, complications, mortality, intensive care unit stay, hospitalization, and operating room (OR) costs were analyzed and a cost projection completed. Sensitivity analyses were performed for varied leak rates during laparoscopy, number of robotic cases per month, number of additional staplers during robotic surgery, and varied OR times for robotic cases. RESULTS: Nine-hundred ninety patients underwent gastric bypass surgery at the University Hospital Geneva from June 1997 to July 2010. There were 524 open, 323 laparoscopic, and 143 robotic cases. Significantly fewer anastomotic complications occurred after open and robotic RYGBP when compared to laparoscopy. OR material costs were slightly less for robotic surgery (USD 5,427) than for laparoscopy (USD 5,494), but more than for the open procedure (USD 2,251). Overall, robotic gastric bypass (USD 19,363) was cheaper when compared to laparoscopy (USD 21,697) and open surgery (USD 23,000). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic RYGBP can be cost effective due to balancing greater robotic overhead costs with the savings associated with avoiding stapler use and costly anastomotic complications.

Randomized clinical trial comparing the cost and effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealers versus clips and vascular staplers for laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of laparoscopy has resulted in a variety of instruments being used routinely for vascular control. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealer (BVS) compared with clips and vascular stapler (CVS) in straight laparoscopic colorectal resection. METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective colorectal resection, including benign and malignant diseases, were randomized to either BVS or CVS for vascular control. Patients whose operation was converted to an open approach before pedicle ligation were excluded. The primary endpoints were duration of operation, including time taken to control vascular pedicles, and cost of disposable instruments for vascular control. RESULTS: Of 114 patients randomized to BVS (60 patients) or CVS (54), 14 did not receive the allocated vascular control device, leaving 55 and 45 respectively for analysis. The BVS reduced the time spent for vascular control by a mean of 6·9 min (P = 0·031) and reduced the cost of disposable instruments for vascular control by US $ 80·7 per patient (P = 0·043). For total colectomy, the BVS reduced the operating time by 103·6 min (P = 0·023) and the time taken for vascular control by 16·8 min (P = 0·022). For left colectomy, it decreased the time to vascular control by 9·3 min (P = 0·021). In multivariable analysis, the cost of disposable instruments for vascular control was independently reduced by randomization to BVS, type of procedure, female sex and estimated blood loss. The mean cost reduction was $ 88·2 for left colectomy (P = 0·037), $ 377·7 (P = 0·005) for total colectomy and $ 366·9 (P = 0·012) for proctectomy. Conversely, use of the BVS increased the cost of instruments used for vascular control in right colectomy by $ 92·6 (P = 0·012). CONCLUSION: BVS devices are expedient and cost-efficient in proctectomy, left and total colectomy procedures.

Laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis using the novel Chex(®) circular stapler: a case-control study.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of a new cost-effective circular stapler for colorectal anastomosis, the Chex(®) CS. METHOD: From 2007 to 2009, a case-control study was conducted of 54 patients who underwent left colectomy with stapled anastomosis using the Chex stapler. The patients were matched to 64 patients in whom the anastomoses were performed using the CDH(®) stapler or the EEA(®) stapler. The following criteria were matched: sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology grade, diagnosis, formation of a temporary stoma and surgical approach. Primary end-points were postoperative mortality and morbidity. The surgeon was asked to fill out a questionnaire to assess the ergonomics of the device using an analogue visual scale. A cost analysis was performed to compare the cost of the different devices. RESULTS: There were no postoperative deaths. Morbidity, including anastomotic leakage (9%vs 8%, P = 1.000), was similar in the two groups. The surgeon's overall appreciation was scored at 8.1/10 (3-9.5), including the best score for stapler removal (9.5). No major device failure was observed during the study. Mean surgical costs were significantly lower in the Chex group: € 903 ± 73 (885-1192) vs the control group € 971 ± 61 (956-1263) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that colorectal anastomosis using the Chex circular stapler is safe and does not increase overall morbidity. In particular, this device did not have a higher rate of anastomotic leakage in our patients than more expensive models currently used in our hospital.

Comparing bipolar electrothermal device and endostapler in endoscopic lung wedge resection.

Video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) is gaining on thoracic surgery, having newly developed devices next to endostaplers for haemostatic and airtight sealing of lung parenchyma. Though the bipolar electrothermal Ligasure has good results for pulmonary wedge resection, its literature is small in numbers. Authors compared Ligasure and endostapler for pulmonary wedge resection of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN). Authors performed a retrospective analysis of 44 consecutive patients. The indication of operation was non-verified SPN in all cases. They carried out pulmonary wedge resection for 22 patients with Ligasure-Atlas and 22 patients with ETS Flex endostapler via VATS. Authors examined the gender, average age (62 vs. 49 years), mean hospital stay (6.6 vs. 6.8 days), average operation time (55 vs. 50 min), number of complications (2 vs. 1), average drainage time (2.8 vs. 2.7 days), average fluid loss (190 vs. 160 ml), and instrumental costs (367 euro vs. 756 euro) of both groups. They accomplished the histological analysis of the coagulated lung parenchyma as well. According to the results, the Ligasure-Atlas is eligible for pulmonary wedge resection. The method is safe, easy to use, having minimal rate of complications. It can moderate costs of operation, compared to endostaplers.

Triangulating stapling technique for reconstruction after colectomy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To retrospectively compare the triangulating stapling technique for colocolonic anastomosis with hand-sewn anastomosis and functional end-to-end anastomosis. METHODOLOGY: Data from 646 patients who underwent colectomy for cancer from 1993 to 2004 were extracted by chart review. Patients were divided into three groups based on the type of anastomosis: handsewn (n=233), functional end-to-end (n=71), and the triangulating stapling method (n=346). Demographic data and clinical characteristics of the three groups were similar. RESULTS: Anastomotic leakage was significantly more common in the hand-sewn group than the triangular stapling group (hand-sewn; 3.0%, functional end-to-end; 2.8%, triangulating, 0.6%) (P < 0.05). No patient developed bleeding or stenosis at the anastomosis, and the incidence of wound infection was equivalent among the three groups. One death due to anastomotic failure occurred in each of the functional end-to-end and triangulating stapling groups. The cost of triangulating stapling was approximately Yen 36,000 lower than the cost of the functional end-to-end anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: The triangulating stapling technique is an attractive alternative to other methods for creating a colocolonic anastomosis.