Cost-effectiveness of sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis or end colostomy for perforated diverticulitis: an analysis of the randomized Ladies trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have been published favouring sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis over Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey grade III or IV), but cost-related outcomes were rarely reported. The present study aimed to evaluate costs and cost-effectiveness within the DIVA arm of the Ladies trial. METHODS: This was a cost-effectiveness analysis of the DIVA arm of the multicentre randomized Ladies trial, comparing primary anastomosis over Hartmann's procedure for Hinchey grade III or IV diverticulitis. During 12-month follow-up, data on resource use, indirect costs (Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire) and quality of life (EuroQol Five Dimensions) were collected prospectively, and analysed according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility (ICUR) ratios, expressed as the ratio of incremental costs and the incremental probability of being stoma-free or incremental quality-adjusted life-years respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 130 patients were included, of whom 64 were allocated to primary anastomosis (46 and 18 with Hinchey III and IV disease respectively) and 66 to Hartmann's procedure (46 and 20 respectively). Overall mean costs per patient were lower for primary anastomosis (€20 544, 95 per cent c.i. 19 569 to 21 519) than Hartmann's procedure (€28 670, 26 636 to 30 704), with a mean difference of €-8126 (-14 660 to -1592). The ICER was €-39 094 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) c.i. -1213 to -116), indicating primary anastomosis to be more cost-effective. The ICUR was €-101 435 (BCa c.i. -1 113 264 to 251 840). CONCLUSION: Primary anastomosis is more cost-effective than Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis.

ANTECEDENTES: Se han publicado varios estudios en favor de la sigmoidectomía con anastomosis primaria (primary anastomosis, PA) sobre la intervención de Hartmann (Hartmann's procedure, HP) para la diverticulitis perforada con peritonitis purulenta o fecal (Hinchey grado III ó IV), pero apenas existe información de los resultados relacionados con el coste. Por lo tanto, el presente estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar los costes y el coste efectividad del brazo DIVA en el ensayo clínico Ladies. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un análisis de coste-efectividad del brazo DIVA del ensayo clínico multicéntrico y aleatorizado Ladies, que comparó PA y HP para la diverticulitis Hinchey de grado III ó IV. Durante un seguimiento de 12 meses, se recogieron datos prospectivamente del uso de recursos, costes indirectos (SF-HLQ) y calidad de vida (EQ-5D), y se analizaron de acuerdo con una modificación del principio por intención de tratar. Los resultados principales fueron la relación coste-efectividad incremental (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) y la relación coste-utilidad incremental (incremental cost-utility ratio, ICUR), expresados como la razón del incremento de costes y el incremento en la probabilidad de no requerir estoma o años de vida ajustados por calidad, respectivamente. RESULTADOS: En total, se incluyeron 130 pacientes, 64 de los cuales fueron asignados a PA (Hinchey III/IV: 46/20) y 66 a HP (Hinchey III/IV: 46/18). Los costes medios globales por paciente fueron más bajos para la PA (€20.544 (i.c. del 95%: 19.569 a 21.519)) en comparación con HP (€ 28.670 (i.c. del 95%: 26.636 a 30.704)), con una diferencia media de €−8.126 (i.c. del 95% −14.660 a −1.592)). Además, se observó un ICER de € −39.094 (95% bias-corrected and accelerated boodstrap confidence interval, BCaCI −1.213 a −116), lo que indica que PA es más coste efectiva. El ICUR fue € −101.435 (BCaCI del 95%: −1.113.264 a 251.840). CONCLUSIÓN: La anastomosis primaria es más rentable que el procedimiento de Hartmann para la diverticulitis perforada con peritonitis purulenta o fecal.

Non-Operative Management is More Cost-Effective than Immediate Operation in Perforated Appendicitis Patients with Seven or More Days of Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Management of perforated appendicitis in children remains controversial. Nonoperative (NO) and immediate operative (IO) strategies are used with varying outcomes. We hypothesized that IO intervention for patients with perforated appendicitis would be more cost-effective than NO management. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients with appendicitis from 2012 to 2015 was performed. Patients with perforated appendicitis were defined by evidence of perforation on imaging. We excluded patients who presented with sepsis, organ failure, and ventriculoperitoneal shunts. NO management was determined by surgeon preference. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: IO was performed on 145 patients with perforated appendicitis, whereas 83 were treated with NO management. Compared to IO patients, NO patients incurred higher overall costs, greater length of stay, more readmissions, complications, peripherally inserted central venous catheter lines, interventional radiology drains, and unplanned clinic and emergency department visits (P < 0.0001 for all). Multivariate analysis adjusting for age, days of symptoms, admission C-reactive protein and white blood cell count revealed that NO management was independently associated with increased costs (OR 1.35, 1.12-1.62, 95% CI). Cost curves demonstrated that total cost for IO surpasses that of NO management when patients present with greater than 6.3 d of symptoms (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that IO is more cost-effective than NO management for patients with perforated appendicitis who present with less than 6.3 d of symptoms, after which point, NO management is more cost-effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

2017 WSES guidelines for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation.

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation (ICP) is a severe complication that can occur during both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although 45-60% of ICPs are diagnosed by the endoscopist while performing the colonoscopy, many ICPs are not immediately recognized but are instead suspected on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms that occur after the endoscopic procedure. There are three main therapeutic options for ICPs: endoscopic repair, conservative therapy, and surgery. The therapeutic approach must vary based on the setting of the diagnosis (intra- or post-colonoscopy), the type of ICP, the characteristics and general status of the patient, the operator's level of experience, and surgical device availability. Although ICPs have been the focus of numerous publications, no guidelines have been created to standardize the management of ICPs. The aim of this article is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of ICP, which are intended to be used as a tool to promote global standards of care in case of ICP. These guidelines are not meant to substitute providers' clinical judgment for individual patients, and they may need to be modified based on the medical team's level of experience and the availability of local resources.

Cost varies with procedure type in pediatric GI foreign bodies.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: In pediatric cases of ingested foreign bodies, gastrointestinal foreign bodies (GIFB) have distinct factors contributing to longer and more costly hospitalizations. METHODS: Patients admitted with ingested foreign bodies were identified in the Kids' Inpatient Database (1997-2009). RESULTS: Overall, 7480 cases were identified. Patients were most commonly <5years of age (44%), male (54%), and Caucasian (57%). A total of 2506 procedures were performed, GI surgical procedures (57%) most frequently, followed by GI endoscopy (24%), esophagoscopy (11%), and bronchoscopy - in cases of inhaled objects (9%). On multivariate analysis, length of stay increased when cases were associated with intestinal obstruction (OR=1.7), esophageal perforation (OR=40.0), intestinal perforation (OR=4.4), exploratory laparotomy (OR=1.9), and gastric (OR=2.9), small bowel (OR=1.5), or colon surgery (OR=2.5), all p<0.02. Higher total charges (TC) were associated with intestinal obstruction (OR=2.0), endoscopy of esophagus (OR=1.8), stomach (OR=2.1), or colon (OR=3.3), and exploratory laparotomy (OR=3.6) or surgery of stomach (OR=5.6), small bowel (OR=6.4), or colon (OR=3.4), all p<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical or endoscopic procedures are performed in approximately one third of GIFB cases. Associated psychiatric disorder or self-inflicted injury is seen in more than 20% of GIFB patients. Resource utilization is determined heavily by associated diagnoses and treatment procedures.

Cost analysis of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis in the Ladies trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is an alternative to sigmoid resection in selected patients presenting with purulent peritonitis from perforated diverticulitis. Although recent trials have lacked superiority for lavage in terms of morbidity, mortality was not compromised, and beneficial secondary outcomes were shown. These included shorter duration of surgery, less stoma formation and less surgical reintervention (including stoma reversal) for laparoscopic lavage versus sigmoid resection respectively. The cost analysis of laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis in the Ladies RCT was assessed in the present study. METHODS: This study involved an economic evaluation of the randomized LOLA (LaparOscopic LAvage) arm of the Ladies trial (comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoid resection in patients with purulent peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis). The actual resource use per individual patient was documented prospectively and analysed (according to intention-to-treat) for up to 1 year after randomization. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were randomized to either laparoscopic lavage (46) or sigmoid resection (42). The total medical costs for lavage were lower (mean difference € - 3512, 95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated c.i. -16 020 to 8149). Surgical reintervention increased costs in the lavage group, whereas stoma reversal increased costs in the sigmoid resection group. Differences in favour of laparoscopy were robust when costs were varied by ±20 per cent in a sensitivity analysis (mean cost difference € - 2509 to -4438). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis is more cost-effective than sigmoid resection.

Clinical outcomes and direct costings of endoluminal clipping compared to surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes and costs of endoluminal clipping and surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforation. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center, clinical and economic analysis of outcomes and costings between endoluminal clipping and surgery in consecutive cases of iatrogenic colonic perforations was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 7136 colonoscopies performed over a 6-year period were complicated by 12 (0.17%) perforations. Seven cases were treated by endoscopic clipping (with a success rate of 71.4%) and five with immediate surgery. Both groups of patients had similar clinical and individual characteristics. Patients who were treated with endoscopic clipping had a shorter period of hospitalization (median 9 vs 13 days) compared to surgery, but this was not statistically significant. Compared to patients who had immediate surgery, the median direct health-care costs for all procedures (US$ 115.10 vs US$ 1479.50, P = 0.012) and investigations (US$ 124.60 vs US$ 512.90, P = 0.048) during inpatient stay were lower for the endoscopic clipping group. There was a trend towards a lower overall inpatient median cost for patients managed with endoscopic clipping compared to surgery (US$ 1481.70 vs US$ 3281.90, P = 0.073). CONCLUSION: Endoluminal clipping may be more cost-effective than surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

Does laparoscopic appendectomy impart an advantage over open appendectomy in elderly patients?

BACKGROUND: The use of laparoscopy in the elderly has been increasing in recent years. The data comparing laparoscopic (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) in elderly patients are minimal. We evaluated outcomes of LA versus OA in perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years). METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, clinical data of elderly patients who underwent LA and OA for suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated from 2006 to 2008. RESULTS: A total of 65,464 elderly patients underwent urgent appendectomy during this period. The rate of perforated appendicitis was twice as high in elderly patients (50 vs. 25%, p < 0.01) and rate of LA in elderly patients was lower (52 vs. 63%, p < 0.01) compared with patients younger than aged 65 years. Utilization of LA increased 24% from 46.5% in 2006 to 57.8% in 2008 (p < 0.01). In elderly patients with acute nonperforated appendicitis, LA had lower overall complication rate (15.82 vs. 23.49%, p < 0.01), in-hospital mortality (0.39 vs. 1.31%, p < 0.01), hospital charges ($30,414 vs. $34,095, p < 0.01), and mean length of stay (3.0 vs. 4.8 days, p < 0.01) compared with OA. Additionally, in perforated appendicitis in elderly patients, LA was associated with lower overall complication rate (36.27 vs. 46.92%, p < 0.01), in-hospital mortality (1.4 vs. 2.63%, p < 0.01), mean hospital charges ($43,339 vs. $57,943, p < 0.01), and shorter mean LOS (5.8 vs. 8.7 days, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed safely with significant advantages compared with open appendectomy in the elderly and should be considered the procedure of choice for perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in these patients.

Cost and validity of early postoperative contrast swallow after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

BACKGROUND: To assess the validity and cost of early routine upper gastrointestinal (UGI) studies after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) at a university hospital in the United States. Today, although there is widespread use of LAGB, and it is considered a safe procedure, it also can result in some specific early complications. In most centers, an UGI series after bariatric surgery is performed to rule out these potentially dangerous complications. METHODS: From March 2006 to July 2010, 183 LAGB procedures were performed by a single surgeon. All data were collected prospectively in a computerized database and reviewed retrospectively. The patients underwent water-soluble UGI studies during the early postoperative phase (2-24 h) to exclude gastrointestinal perforation, obstruction, and gastric band malposition. RESULTS: No intraoperative complications occurred. One conversion to an open procedure was required because of massive adhesions. A total of 21 postoperative complications (11.5%) occurred. None of the 183 patients who underwent an early UGI series experienced leakage, gastric band malposition, or slippage. The only radiologic abnormality was a stomal obstruction (.5%) requiring reoperation. The total cost for the 183 UGI studies was $54,900. The mean hospital stay was .5 day (range .1-5.6). Approximately 90% of patients were discharged within the first 24 hours. CONCLUSION: The fear of acute perforation or obstruction has been the rationale for obtaining UGI studies after LAGB. We found this to be expensive and of limited value in an experienced center and have created a decisional algorithm to determine when its use is appropriate for symptomatic patients.

Treatment of acute diverticulitis laparoscopic lavage vs. resection (DILALA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Perforated diverticulitis is a condition associated with substantial morbidity. Recently published reports suggest that laparoscopic lavage has fewer complications and shorter hospital stay. So far no randomised study has published any results. METHODS: DILALA is a Scandinavian, randomised trial, comparing laparoscopic lavage (LL) to the traditional Hartmann's Procedure (HP). Primary endpoint is the number of re-operations within 12 months. Secondary endpoints consist of mortality, quality of life (QoL), re-admission, health economy assessment and permanent stoma. Patients are included when surgery is required. A laparoscopy is performed and if Hinchey grade III is diagnosed the patient is included and randomised 1:1, to either LL or HP. Patients undergoing LL receive > 3L of saline intraperitoneally, placement of pelvic drain and continued antibiotics. Follow-up is scheduled 6-12 weeks, 6 months and 12 months. A QoL-form is filled out on discharge, 6- and 12 months. Inclusion is set to 80 patients (40+40). DISCUSSION: HP is associated with a high rate of complication. Not only does the primary operation entail complications, but also subsequent surgery is associated with a high morbidity. Thus the combined risk of treatment for the patient is high. The aim of the DILALA trial is to evaluate if laparoscopic lavage is a safe, minimally invasive method for patients with perforated diverticulitis Hinchey grade III, resulting in fewer re-operations, decreased morbidity, mortality, costs and increased quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: British registry (ISRCTN) for clinical trials ISRCTN82208287http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN82208287.

At what cost does a potential survival advantage of bevacizumab make sense for the primary treatment of ovarian cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel and carboplatin for the primary treatment of advanced ovarian cancer can be cost effective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis compared the three arms of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 218 study (paclitaxel plus carboplatin [PC], PC plus bevacizumab [PCB], and PCB plus bevacizumab maintenance [PCB+B]). Actual and estimated costs of treatment plus the potential costs of complications were established for each strategy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and bowel perforation rates were taken from recently reported results of GOG 218. Sensitivity analysis was performed for pertinent uncertainties in the model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS) were estimated. RESULTS: For the 600 patients entered onto each arm of GOG 218 at the baseline estimates of PFS and bowel perforation, the cost of PC was $2.5 million, compared with $21.4 million for PCB and $78.3 million for PCB+B. These costs led to an ICER of $479,712 per PF-LYS for PCB and $401,088 per PF-LYS for PCB+B. When the cost of bevacizumab was reduced to 25% of baseline, the ICER of PCB+B fell below $100,000 per PF-LYS. ICERs were not substantially reduced when the perforation rate was equal across all arms. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer is not cost effective. Treatment with maintenance bevacizumab leads to improved PFS but is associated with both direct and indirect costs. The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of ovarian cancer is primarily dependent on drug costs.

Primary vs. secondary anastomosis after sigmoid colon resection for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey Stage III and IV): a prospective outcome and cost analysis.

PURPOSE: Our hypothesis was that in patients with perforated sigmoid colon diverticulitis and peritonitis (Hinchey Stage III and IV) a one-stage sigmoid colon resection is safe and cost effective when performed by an experienced colorectal surgeon. We evaluated outcome and cost of one-stage vs. two-stage sigmoid colon resection after diverticulitis perforation and peritonitis. METHODS: Patients undergoing emergency resection for perforated sigmoid colon diverticulitis and peritonitis (Hinchey Stage III and IV). Outcome, costs, and insurers reimbursement were compared between 13 patients undergoing sigmoid colon resection and primary anastomosis (Group A) and 42 patients undergoing sigmoid colon resection with Hartmann's procedure and secondary descendorectostomy (Group B). RESULTS: Group A patients were comparable to Group B patients in age, gender, preoperative risk and severity of peritonitis (Mannheim Peritonitis Index and C-reactive protein). Operating room time for sigmoid colon resection with primary anastomosis (3.3 +/- 1.2 hours) was identical to the time for sigmoid colon resection with colostomy (3.3 +/- 1 hour), and morbidity and mortality, intensive care unit, and in-hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. In Group B patients' intestinal continuity was restored 169 +/- 74 days after the primary resection in 32 of 42 patients only (78 percent). The second procedure took on average 1.4 hours longer than the first procedure. Patients in Group B received more antibiotics (2.2 vs. 2) albeit for a shorter period of time (4.5 vs. 5.7 days, P = not significant). Overall expenses for restoration of intestinal continuity were between 74 and 229 percent higher for Group B patients than for Group A patients. Reimbursement was 18,191 +/- 16,761 SFr (Group A) and 41,321 +/- 26,983 SFr (Group B) respectively. CONCLUSION: With meticulous surgical technique and extensive intraoperative lavage, perforated sigmoid colon diverticulitis with peritonitis can be treated by a one-stage sigmoid colon resection and anastomosis with a low mortality and morbidity. A one-stage procedure is considerably cheaper and patients are rehabilitated faster and to a higher percentage.

Perforated appendicitis: prospective outcome analysis for 150 children.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Controversy persists in the management of perforated appendicitis with regard to antibiotic choice and duration, operative timing, drain utilization, and wound closure. For 2 decades at the authors' institution, patients were treated with ampicillin, gentamicin, and clindamycin for 10 inpatient days, with drains in the abdomen, resulting in lower complication rates than most other published series. Managed care pressures have led to less aggressive medical management regimens with length of stay and financial factors viewed as principal outcome measures with little emphasis on clinical outcomes. In addition, there are little prospective data on clinical outcomes. The authors sought to determine whether our previously documented excellent quality outcomes could be maintained when modifications aimed at decreasing cost and length of stay in our protocol were instituted. METHODS: The authors monitored prospectively clinical outcomes in patients with perforated appendicitis treated according to their clinical practice guidelines over a 43-month period. Patients received a single antibiotic, piperacillin-tazobactam, intravenously for 10 days. They were permitted to go home with a percutaneous intravenous catheter for the final 5 days if medical and social criteria were met. Other practices from our earlier protocol were continued, including immediate operation, placement of Penrose drains, and primary wound closure. RESULTS: Of 150 patients treated on our protocol, major complications included intraabdominal abscess in 5 (3.3%), cecal fistula in 2 (1.3%), phlegmon in 3 (2.0%), wound infection in 4 (2.7%), and no small bowel obstructions requiring operation. None of these complications, nor their aggregate, were significantly more common than those reported in 373 patients treated over 11 years on the authors' prior protocol (chi2, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective outcome analysis of our protocol shows that a single broad-spectrum antibiotic (allowing portions of therapy to be delivered less expensively on an outpatient basis) effectively can treat postoperative appendicitis with very few infectious complications. These outcome data provide baseline against which future protocols can be compared. All treatment modifications aimed at decreasing costs must be analyzed to ensure quality of care is not unduly compromised.

Insurance and the risk of ruptured appendix in the adult.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in medical care related to the insurance status of patients have been reported. A retrospective analysis was performed to examine the insurance-related differences in the risk of appendiceal perforation in the Prince of Wales Hospital (POWH), New South Wales. METHODS: Computerized data of 1179 patient years who had a diagnosis of appendicitis and were admitted to the POWH over the preceding 10 years were examined. The outcome measure was appendiceal perforation. Patient variables examined were insurance status, sex, age, and socio-economic status (SES). Three hundred patients over the same period were identified who had an appendicectomy but not appendicitis. Multiple logistic regression and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The overall perforation rate in 1179 patients was 17%. The only factor that was related to an increased risk of perforation was age over 50 years (odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-2.53). Sex, insurance status or SES were not associated with a higher risk of perforation. The overall rate of negative appendicectomy was 20% (300 of 1479 patients), and the rate was higher in the uninsured patients (22 vs 17%, P = 0.014, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of health insurance was not associated with an increased incidence of appendiceal perforation at the POWH. Age over 50 years was identified as the only risk factor for appendiceal perforation. The lower negative appendicectomy rate in the insured group may be because of better diagnostic ability of consultants compared to registrars.

Laparoscopic appendectomy is an acceptable alternative for the treatment of perforated appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Ever since laparoscopy was first applied to the treatment of appendicitis, a controversy has existed as to whether the acknowledged benefits of a minimally invasive approach warrant its preference over the conventional treatment, which historically has had relatively low morbidity. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic appendectomy should be performed preferentially in cases where surgeons are not limited by technical constraints. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 112 patients operated on for suspected appendicitis from June 1995 to July 1996. Forty-eight patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, and 64 had conventional open appendectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed using a three-trocar technique and the endoscopic stapler. RESULTS: The histopathological diagnosis of appendicitis was confirmed in 82.6% of cases. Overall, laparoscopic appendectomy reduced length of hospital stay (1.54 versus 4.09 days; p < 0.0001) compared to conventional open appendectomy, with no significant difference in hospital cost ($6430 versus $6669; p = ns). Although the total OR time was longer in the laparoscopic group (75.8 versus 60.2 min; p < 0.0001), laparoscopy resulted in both a reduction in length of stay (2.17 versus 6.27 days; p < 0.0001) and hospital cost ($7506 versus $10,504; p < 0.02) for cases of perforated appendicitis. Conversion to open appendectomy was performed in 6% of patients, all of whom had perforated appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that most cases of acute appendicitis with suspected perforation could be managed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic appendectomy significantly reduces length of stay and hospital costs in patients with perforated appendicitis.

[Abdominal pain of uncertain origin--value of laparoscopy. "If in doubt, carry it out"]. / Der unklare Unterbauchschmerz--Stellenwert der Laparoskopie. "If in doubt, carry it out".

Surgeons treating a patient with lower abdominal pain of uncertain etiology are caught between the extremes of conservative and operative treatment. After clinical examination and ultrasonography, explorative laparoscopy has been shown by several studies to solve this therapeutic dilemma. Using laparoscopy prolonged observation, the incidence of perforation and unnecessary laparotomies can be reduced dramatically, in particular, the rate of negative appendectomies is lowered from 30-40% to about 15%. This leads to shortened stay in hospital, increased efficiency and decreased financial costs.

Cost-utility analysis of contaminated appendectomy wounds.

BACKGROUND: The influence of patient preference and treatment costs has not been considered in previous analyses of wound management decisions for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a decision and cost-utility analysis, conducting a MEDLINE search of the postappendectomy wound infection literature to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Institution-specific cost data were obtained, and utility assignments were made by the authors. Studies used to assign baseline probabilities fulfilled the following criteria: perforated appendix or gangrenous appendicitis, use of perioperative antibiotics active against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, and data stratified by wound management, operative findings, and infection rate. RESULTS: We constructed a decision tree comparing three methods of wound management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions: primary closure, delayed primary closure, and secondary closure. Utility (a quality of life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. We calculated the cost-utility for each method of wound management and found that primary closure was of optimum cost-utility compared with delayed primary closure and secondary closure. To gain one quality-adjusted life year treating a population of patients with contaminated incisions, primary closure saves $22,635 over delayed primary closure and another $22,340 over secondary closure. This decision, tested by two-way sensitivity analyses, was sensitive only to high primary closure infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Challenging traditional surgical dogma, cost-utility analysis shows that primary closure is the favored method of management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. This analysis is specific to right lower quadrant incisions and the conclusion is valid for all estimated primary infection rates less than 0.27.

A clinical outcome and cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy are controversial, and the results of recent clinical studies have contradictory conclusions. We performed a cost analysis comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies to assess potential efficacy of the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: All patients operated on for suspected acute appendicitis at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) from January 1, 1991 through January 1, 1995 were analyzed. Potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach were examined in five major categories: hospital length of stay, total hospital charges, operative time, operating room charges, and postoperative complications. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of perforation for outcome analysis. RESULTS: There were 163 appendectomies performed in 82 men and 81 women. Twenty-seven (17%) patients had laparoscopic evaluation, of which 21 underwent attempted laparoscopic appendectomy. Among nonperforated patients, laparoscopic appendectomy did not reduce hospital stay compared with open appendectomy, but did lead to greater hospital charges ($7760 vs $5064; P < 0.001). Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group (104 vs 74 minutes; P < 0.001) compared with open appendectomies. Operating room charges for laparoscopic appendectomies exceeded charges for the open approach ($4740 vs $1870; P < 0.001). Complication rates were similar (laparoscopic, 19% vs open, 16%; NS). The false diagnostic rate for women was four times greater than for men among patients undergoing open appendectomy (31% vs 8%; P < 0.01). Patients with perforation undergoing a midline incision had a longer hospital stay (9.5 vs 5.9; P < 0.02) than patients operated on through a right lower quadrant incision. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, laparoscopic appendectomy, while safe, was more expensive and was not associated with better clinical outcome compared with open appendectomy patients.