A comprehensive evaluation of the long-term economic impact of major bile duct injury.

BACKGROUND: Complications and litigation after bile duct injury (BDI) result in clinical and economic burden. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the long-term clinical and economic impact of major BDI. METHOD: Patients with long-term follow-up after Strasberg E BDI were identified. Costs of treatment and litigation were the primary outcome. Relationships between these outcomes and repair factors, like timing of repair and surgeon expertise, were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Among 139 patients with a median follow up of 10.7 years, 40% of patients developed biliary complications. Repairs by non-specialist surgeons had significantly higher follow up and treatment costs than those by specialists (£25,814 vs. £14,269, p < 0.001). Estimated litigation costs were higher in delayed than immediate repairs (£23,295 vs. £12,864). As such, the lowest average costs per BDI are after immediate specialist repair and the highest after delayed non-specialist repair (£27,133 vs. £49,109, ×1.81 more costly, p < 0.001). Repair by a non-specialist surgeon (HR: 4.00, p < 0.001) and vascular injury (HR: 2.35, p = 0.013) were significant independent predictors of increased complication rates. CONCLUSION: Costs of major BDI are considerable. They can be reduced by immediate on-table repair by specialist surgeons. This must therefore be considered the standard of care wherever possible.

Risk factors for increased resource utilization and critical care complications in patients undergoing hepaticojejunostomy for biliary injuries.

BACKGROUND: This project aimed to study resource utilization and surgical outcomes after hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) for biliary injuries utilizing data from ACS NSQIP. METHODS: Data from the Participant Use Data File containing surgical patients submitted to the ACS NSQIP during the period of 1/1/2005-12/31/2014 were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 320 patients underwent HJ. Mean age was 50 years, and 109 (34%) were male. Forty-four percent of patients met criteria for ASA class III-V. Forty patients (12.5%) developed one or more critical care complications (CCC). Eighty-one patients (25%) experienced morbidity with a perioperative mortality rate of 1.9%. The mean age of these patients was 52 years, and 62% were male. Age and preoperative elevated alkaline phosphatase were independent predictors of CCC (p < 0.001 and 0.042, OR 1.035, OR 4.337, respectively). Patients ASA class III, age, and preoperative hypoalbuminemia were found to increase risk for prolonged LOS (OR 1.87, p = 0.041, OR 1.02, p = 0.049, OR 2.63, p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: The most significant predictors of morbidity and increased resource utilization after HJ include increasing age, ASA class III or above, and preoperative hypoalbuminemia. Age and ASA class are the strongest predictors of CCC in these patients.

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.

Esophageal perforation management using a multidisciplinary minimally invasive treatment algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of esophageal perforation (EP) often results in mortality and significant morbidity. Recent less invasive approaches to EP management include endoscopic luminal stenting and minimally invasive surgical therapies. We wished to establish therapeutic efficacy of minimally invasive therapies in a consecutive series of patients. STUDY DESIGN: An IRB-approved retrospective review of all acute EPs between 2007 and 2013 at a single institution was performed. Patient demographic, clinical outcomes data, and hospital charges were collected. RESULTS: We reviewed 76 consecutive patients with acute EP presenting to our tertiary care center. Median age was 64 ± 16 years (range 25 to 87 years), with 50 men and 26 women. Ninety percent of EPs were in the distal esophagus, with 67% of iatrogenic perforations occurring within 4 cm of the gastroesophageal junction. All patients were treated within 24 hours of initial presentation with a removable covered esophageal stent. Leak occlusion was confirmed within 48 hours of esophageal stent placement in 68 patients. Median lengths of ICU and hospital stay were 3 and 10 days, respectively (range 1 to 86 days). One-third of the patients were noted to have prolonged intubation (>7 days) and pneumonia that required a tracheostomy. One in-hospital (1.3%) mortality occurred within 30 days. Median total hospital charges for EP were $85,945. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopically placed removable esophageal stents with minimally invasive repair of the perforation and feeding access is an effective treatment method for patients with EP. This multidisciplinary method enabled us to care for severely ill patients while minimizing morbidity and mortality and avoiding open esophageal surgery.

Clinical costs of feeding tube placement.

BACKGROUND: Although small-bore tube placement is common, insertion can lead to serious complications. We investigated the use of radiographs, fluoroscopy, feeding tubes, and complications associated with blind feeding-tube placement. METHODS: The electronic and paper records of adult patients receiving a small-bore feeding tube in 2005 were retrospectively reviewed for the following variables: demographics, desired location (gastric or postpyloric), number of radiographs, number of tubes per individual, time interval between medical prescription, tube placement and delivery of the diet, complications, transport for fluoroscopy, and hospital location of placement (intensive care unit vs floor). RESULTS: We identified 1822 tubes placed into 729 patients (male: 449, 61.6%; female: 280, 38.4%; median age: 59 years old, range 18-98). All tubes were placed by nurses unless fluoroscopically placed in radiology or placed after head and neck surgery in the operating room. An average of 2.5 (range 1-20) tubes was used per patient. A total of 2696 radiographs were obtained for an average of 3.7 (range 0-32) films per patient and 1.5 (range 0-11) per feeding tube. Successful placement was higher for intragastric (93.3%) than for postpyloric position (60.4%; p < .001). Fluoroscopy was needed in 18.6% of the patients, mostly for postpyloric insertion (p < .001). Respiratory tree misplacement occurred in 23 (3.2%) patients; 9 (1.2%) had a pneumothorax and 4 (0.5%) died. Patients with a malpositioned feeding tube underwent more tube insertions (6.8 +/- 5.4; range 2-20) than patients without complications (2.2 +/- 1.8; range 1-18; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of airway misplacement of feeding tubes (3.2%) at a major tertiary referral university hospital was alarming. Mandatory radiographs may eliminate the risk of respiratory administration of feedings but not misplacements. The associated costs of radiographs, unsuccessful placements, fluoroscopy, and complications are significant. A solution to this problem will require focused attention and development of specific protocols, possibly using new technologies.

Case study of a patient with a distal jejunostomy.

A young man with a short but complicated medical history was seen in our enterostomal therapy department in a large acute-care facility. The patient had a distal jejunostomy with an extremely high and problematic output. Cases such as his force WOC nurses to review basic anatomy, physiology, and psychosocial development to provide holistic care in a specialized practice. Such cases can justify the existence of WOC nurses and prove they are a valuable asset in the health care system.

Efficacy of jejunogram after jejunostomy insertion.

The era of managed care has spawned a national debate over the allocation of health care resources. We hypothesized that routine postjejunostomy jejunogram rarely provides additional clinical information or changes patient management and, therefore, is unwarranted. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 128 consecutive patients undergoing feeding jejunostomy tube insertion between January 1995 and December 1996. All patients had postinsertion jejunograms. Eighty-five (66%) of the jejunograms were performed after operative insertion of the jejunostomy, and 43 (33%) were performed after percutaneous reinsertion of a previously placed jejunostomy. Data extracted from the charts include age, sex, indication for jejunogram, length of time prior jejunostomy was in place at time of reinsertion, and results of jejunogram. There were no patients (0%) with misplaced jejunostomy or extravasation of dye, as noted on jejunogram. There were no management changes implemented as a result of jejunogram readings (P < <0.05). The use of routine jejunogram after operative insertion or reinsertion of a prior jejunostomy that has become dislodged or occluded does not alter patient management, incurs unnecessary costs, and, therefore, is unwarranted.

Radiologic gastrojejunostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a prospective, randomized comparison.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of radiologic guided placement of percutaneous gastrojejunostomy (PGJ) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to PGJ (n = 66) or PEG (n = 69). Indications for gastrostomy were need for prolonged enteral nutrition (97%) or gastrointestinal decompression (3%), with etiologies of neurologic impairment (81%), head and neck neoplasm (12%), bowel obstruction (3%), or other (4%). Mean follow-up was 202 days and 30-day follow-up was obtained for 85% of patients. RESULTS: PEG was successful in 63 of 69 (91%) patients, while PGJ established access in all of 66 attempts (100%) (P = .014). Average procedural time was 53 minutes for PGJ and 24 minutes for PEG (P = .001). At 30-day follow-up, there were 33 and 45 complications in the PGJ and PEG groups, respectively. This difference was due to the greater incidence of pneumonia in the PEG group (P = .013). Long-term tube-related complications occurred with 17 PGJs and four PEGs (P = .007). The PGJ cost more than PEG, but this advantage was offset by the cost of complications. CONCLUSION: PGJ had higher success rate and fewer complications, due to a lower incidence of pneumonia. PEG took less time to perform, cost less, and required less tube maintenance.

Laparoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy: safety and cost with local vs general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: General anesthesia is used for laparoscopic enteral access because pneumoperitoneum requires relaxation of the abdominal muscles. We wanted to determine whether these procedures could be performed with similar results and cost under local anesthesia. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study with 30-day follow-up including a cost-benefit analysis. SETTING: University-affiliated hospitals. PATIENTS: Forty-eight patients (32 men, 16 women; mean age, 67 years) undergoing laparoscopic gastrostomies (n = 32) and jejunostomies (n = 16). INTERVENTION: Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic gastrostomy (n = 15) and jejunostomy (n = 9) under local anesthesia with intravenous conscious sedation and monitored anesthesia care. Twenty-four patients had general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Conversion to general anesthesia, complications, and cost. RESULTS: Ten patients under local anesthesia had periods of deep sedation and 1 required conversion to general anesthesia. One patient under general anesthesia required conversion to open gastrostomy. No patients had intraoperative aspiration; however, 4 aspirated after the procedure. One patient died of myocardial infarction during the 30-day follow-up. We found no significant difference in the total mean cost and actual procedure time. The surgeon's fee accounted for 31% of the total cost. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients undergoing laparoscopic enteral access may require deep sedation and a rare patient may require general anesthesia. Clinical conditions and surgeon preference, therefore, should determine whether local anesthesia is suitable for laparoscopic gastrostomies and jejunostomies, and in what setting, since there is no difference in success rate or complications when compared with general anesthesia. Potential savings are possible from the operating room (26% of total cost) or anesthesiologist (12% of total cost) if these procedures are performed in an endoscopy suite without monitored anesthesia care.

Early postoperative enteral feeding following major upper gastrointestinal surgery.

For a variety of reasons, enteral feeding is frequently delayed following major abdominal surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate prospectively the feasibility and tolerance of early jejunal feeding following major upper gastrointestinal surgery. Beginning on postoperative day 1, patients (n = 167) received a full-strength enteral formula at the rate of 25 ml/hr through a jejunal feeding tube. Diets were advanced to the calculated target rate (25 kcal/kg/day) by postoperative day 4. Complications of tube feeding, calories received, and patient symptoms were recorded daily. There were no major complications or deaths resulting from placement of a jejunal tube or from early enteral feeding. Patients had abdominal symptoms such as cramping, distention, nausea, and diarrhea on 9%, 18%, 4%, and 24% of all feeding days, respectively. The majority of these symptoms, with the exception of diarrhea, were graded as mild. Patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic malignancy had significantly more diarrhea than patients undergoing esophagectomy or gastrectomy. Despite these differences in symptoms, patients received an average of 78% of their targeted caloric goal by postoperative day 4 and maintained this level throughout the study. Early enteral feeding for patients undergoing esophageal, gastric, or pancreatic resections is both safe and feasible despite the occurrence of predominantly mild gastrointestinal symptoms.

[Performance and cost analysis of surgical therapy of stomach carcinoma--results and sequelae]. / Leistungs- und Kostenanalyse der chirurgischen Therapie des Magenkarzinoms--Ergebnisse und Folgerungen.

In order to identify opportunities for cost containment in gastric cancer surgery, and analysis of pre-, peri-, and postoperative cost profiles was performed for 60 gastric cancer patients who underwent curative resections (76.6%), explorative laparotomies (18.3%), and palliative gastrojejunostomies (5%). While pre- and perioperative phases only offer limited opportunities for cost reduction, postoperative complications raised the mean length of hospital stay by 47%, the mean length of intensive care treatment by 865%, and the total treatment costs by 84-248% compared to an uncomplicated clinical course. Pre-, peri-, and postoperative cost-containment efforts must focus on the prevention of postoperative complications.