Evaluating the Validity of the Clavien-Dindo Classification in Colectomy Studies: A 90-Day Cost of Care Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Clavien-Dindo classification is widely used to report postoperative morbidity but may underestimate the severity of colectomy complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess how well the Clavien-Dindo classification represents the severity of all grades of complications after colectomy using cost of care modeling. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients (N = 1807) undergoing elective colon or rectal resections without a stoma performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2009 and 2014 who were followed up for ≥90 days, were not transferred to other hospitals, and did not receive intraperitoneal chemotherapy were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complication severity was measured by the highest-grade complication per patient and attributable outpatient and inpatient costs. Associations were evaluated between patient complication grade and cost during 3 time periods: the 90 days after surgery, index admission, and postdischarge (<90 d). RESULTS: Of the 1807 patients (median age = 62 y), 779 (43%) had a complication; 80% of these patients had only grade 1 or 2 complications. Increasing patient complication grade correlated with 90-day cost, driven by inpatient cost differences (p < 0.001). For grade 1 and 2 patients, most costs were incurred after discharge and were the same between these grade categories. Among patients with a single complication (52%), there was no difference in index hospitalization, postdischarge, or total 90-day costs between grade 1 and 2 categories. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design and generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: The Clavien-Dindo classification correlates well with 90-day costs, driven largely by inpatient resource use. Clavien-Dindo does not discriminate well among patients with low-grade complications in terms of their substantial postdischarge costs. These patients represent 80% of patients with a complication after colectomy. Examining the long-term burden associated with complications can help refine the Clavien-Dindo classification for use in colectomy studies. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B521. EVALUACIN DE LA VALIDEZ DE LA CLASIFICACIN DE CLAVIENDINDO EN ESTUDIOS DE COLECTOMA ANLISIS DEL COSTO DE LA ATENCIN EN DAS: ANTECEDENTES:La clasificación de Clavien-Dindo es utilizada ampliamante para conocer la morbilidad posoperatoria, pero puede subestimar la gravedad de las complicaciones de la colectomía.OBJETIVO:Evaluar que tan bien representa la clasificación de Clavien-Dindo la gravedad de todos los grados de complicaciones después de la colectomía utilizando un modelo de costo de la atención.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes consecutivos (n = 1807) sometidos a resecciones electivas de colon o recto sin estoma realizadas en el Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center entre 2009 y 2014 que fueron seguidos durante ≥ 90 días, no fueron transferidos a otros hospitales y no recibieron quimioterapia intraperitoneal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Gravedad de la complicación medida por la complicación de mayor grado por paciente y los costos atribuibles para pacientes ambulatorios y hospitalizados. Se evaluó la asociación entre el grado de complicación del paciente y el costo durante 3 períodos de tiempo: posterior a la cirugía (hasta 90 días), a su ingreso y posterior al egreso (hasta 90 días).RESULTADOS:De los 1807 pacientes (mediana de edad de 62 años), 779 (43%) tuvieron una complicación; El 80% de estos pacientes tuvieron solo complicaciones de grado 1 o 2. El aumento del grado de complicación del paciente se correlacionó con el costo a 90 días, impulsado por las diferencias en el costo de los pacientes hospitalizados (p <0,001). Para los pacientes de grado 1 y 2, la mayoría de los costos se incurrieron después del alta y fueron los mismos entre ambas categorías. Entre los pacientes con una sola complicación (52%), no hubo diferencia en el índice de hospitalización, posterior al alta o en el costo total de 90 días entre las categorías de grado 1 y 2.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, generalizabilidad.CONCLUSIONES:La clasificación de Clavien-Dindo se correlaciona bien con los costos a 90 días, impulsados en gran parte por la utilización de recursos de pacientes hospitalizados. Clavien-Dindo no discrimina entre los pacientes con complicaciones de bajo grado en términos de sus costos sustanciales posterior al alta. Estos pacientes representan el 80% de los pacientes aquellos con una complicación tras la colectomía. Examinar la carga a largo plazo asociada a las complicaciones puede ayudar a mejorar la clasificación de Clavien-Dindo para su uso en estudios de colectomía. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B521.

Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

Cost drivers of locally advanced rectal cancer treatment-An analysis of a leading healthcare insurer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the economic burden of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treatment from a society perspective through analysis of health insurance-derived data of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients. METHODS: Retrospective cost analysis of patients undergoing rectal resection within a multimodal (neoadjuvant chemoradiation + adjuvant chemotherapy) treatment strategy between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2018, using the claims OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. RESULTS: In total, 1738 (935 commercial and 803 MA) patients were included. Overall treatment costs totaled $230,881,746 (on average $183 653 ± 82 384 per commercially insured and $73 681 ± 32 917 per MA patient). Cost distribution according to category (commercially insured patients) was: 29.92% related to outpatient care (follow-up visits/diagnostics), radiotherapy: 21.83%, index resection: 20.62%, chemotherapy: 17.44%, surgical inpatient: 6.32%, medical inpatient: 3.28%, emergency room: 0.58%. Relative cost distribution of the index resection itself differed marginally between the three approaches and was 21.49% for open, 19.30% for laparoscopic, and 20.93% for robotic surgery. Relative cost distributions of neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and outpatient treatments remained unchanged, independently of the surgical approach. This representation was similar in MA patients. CONCLUSION: Index-surgery related costs were outweighed by costs related to oncological and outpatient workup/follow-up treatments independently of both surgical approach and insurance type.

What Does a Diagnosis of Depression Mean for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Depression has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients after surgery. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of documented depression diagnosis on in-hospital postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the National Inpatient Sample (2002-2017) who underwent proctectomies and colectomies were included. The outcomes measured included total hospital charge, length of stay, delirium, wound infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, mortality, paralytic ileus, leak, and discharge trends. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 4,212,125 patients, depression diagnosis was present in 6.72% of patients who underwent colectomy and 6.54% of patients who underwent proctectomy. Regardless of procedure type, patients with depression had higher total hospital charges and greater rates of delirium, wound infection, UTI, leak, and nonroutine discharge, with no difference in length of stay. On adjusted analysis, patients with a depression diagnosis who underwent colectomies had increased risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93-2.32), wound infection (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.12), UTI (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.20), paralytic ileus (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), and leak (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.30-1.43). Patients who underwent proctectomy showed similar results, with the addition of significantly increased total hospital charges among the depression group. Depression diagnosis was independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (colectomy OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.62; proctectomy OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a diagnosis of depression suffer worse in-hospital outcomes but experience lower risk of in-hospital mortality after undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are needed to validate and fully understand the driving factors behind this.

The impact of an enhanced recovery program (ERP) on the costs of colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERPs) benefit patients but their effects on healthcare costs remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the costs associated with a colorectal ERP in a large academic health system. METHODS: Patients who underwent colorectal surgery from 2012 to 2014 (pre-ERP) and 2015-2017 (ERP) were propensity score matched based on patient and operative-level characteristics. Primary outcomes were median variable, fixed, and total costs. Secondary outcomes included length-of-stay (LOS), readmissions, and postoperative complications (POCs). RESULTS: 616 surgical cases were included. Patient and operative-level characteristics were similar between the cohorts. Variable costs were $1028 less with ERP. ERP showed savings in nursing, surgery, anesthesiology, pharmacy, and laboratory costs, but had higher fixed costs. Total costs between the two groups were similar. ERP patients had significantly shorter LOS (-1 day, p < 0.01), but similar 30-day readmission rates and overall POCs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERP for colorectal surgery was associated with lower variable costs compared to pre-ERP.

The Introduction of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: Can It Improve Hospital Economics?

INTRODUCTION: Clinical benefits of laparoscopic surgery are well established, but evidence for financial benefits is limited. This study aimed to compare the financial impact of the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: This study included patients who underwent colorectal surgery between January 2010 and 2015. We collected a range of financial data and divided the patients into 2 groups. Primary outcome was total cost defined by surgical-related costs. RESULTS: A total of 1,246 patients were included, of which 440 surgeries were performed laparoscopically. The total median cost of laparoscopy was higher compared to open surgery (EUR 4,665 vs. EUR 4,268, p = 0.001). Laparoscopy was associated with higher equipment costs (EUR 857 vs. EUR 232, p < 0.001), longer operating time (3.2 vs. 2.5 hours, p < 0.001), and more readmissions (10.9 vs. 8.5%, p < 0.001). However, after adjusting for heterogeneity, no difference was found in total cost. Surgical-related costs were counterbalanced by lower costs associated with shorter median hospital stay (6 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001), less morbidity (37.3 vs. 55.1%, p < 0.001), and less mortality (1.8 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.013) for laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: During the introduction of laparoscopy for colorectal surgery, no significant differences were found in total cost between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. However, favorable postoperative outcomes were achieved with laparoscopic surgery.

Limited Role for Routine Restaging After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although many patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergo restaging imaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and before surgery, the benefit of this practice is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of reimaging on outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with stage 2 and 3 rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy between May 2005 and April 2018. Patient and disease characteristics, imaging, treatment, and oncologic outcomes were compared between those who underwent restaging and those who went directly to surgery. Predictors of outcomes and cost effectiveness of restaging were determined. RESULTS: Of 224 patients, 146 underwent restaging. Six restaged patients had findings leading to a change in management. There was no difference in freedom from recurrence (P = 0.807) and overall survival (P = 0.684) based on restaging. Pretreatment carcinoembryonic antigen level >3 ng/mL (P = 0.010), clinical T stage 4 (P = 0.016), and pathologic T4 (P = 0.047) and N2 (P = 0.002) disease increased the risk of death, whereas adjuvant chemotherapy decreased the risk of death (P < 0.001) on multivariate analysis. Disease recurrence was lower with pelvic exenteration (P = 0.005) and in females (P = 0.039) and higher with pathologic N2 (P = 0.003) and N3 (P = 0.002) disease. The average cost of reimaging is $40,309 per change in management; however, $45 is saved per patient when downstream surgical costs are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging restaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer rarely changes treatment and does not improve survival. In a subset of patients at higher risk for worse outcome, reimaging may be beneficial.

Oncological Outcomes and Hospital Costs of the Treatment in Patients With Rectal Cancer: Watch-and-Wait Policy and Standard Surgical Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the costs of the current treatment strategy in locally advanced rectal cancer, in which patients with a clinical complete response after chemoradiotherapy are treated in a watch-and-wait policy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to present the oncological outcome and hospital costs of patients with a complete response after chemoradiotherapy (watch-and-wait policy) and patients with an incomplete response after chemoradiotherapy (total mesorectal excision). DESIGN: This was a cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at an academic and a nonacademic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer received either a watch-and-wait policy or total mesorectal excision depending on their clinical response to chemoradiotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Watch-and-wait policy and total mesorectal excision were the treatments applied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were overall, local recurrence-free, and distant metastasis-free survival and hospital costs over a 2-year follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 292 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Mean age was 65.1 years, and 64.7% were men. One hundred five patients were included in the watch-and-wait subgroup, and 187 patients were in the total mesorectal excision subgroup. Both subgroups showed good oncological outcomes. Hospital costs consisted of 5 categories: costs of primary surgery, costs of adjuvant chemotherapy, costs of examinations, costs of additional surgery, and costs of treatment of regrowth/metastasis. The mean costs per patient were &OV0556;6713 (watch-and-wait subgroup) and &OV0556;17,108 (total mesorectal excision subgroup) over the first 2 years. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the following: costs were only from a hospital perspective, follow-up was 2 years, the study was retrospective in part, and there was no comparative study. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival was good in both subgroups and comparable to literature. The mean costs per patient differ between the watch-and-wait subgroup (&OV0556;6713) and the total mesorectal excision subgroup (&OV0556;17,108). No comparison between the groups could be made. Based on the results of this study, the current strategy, where patients with a clinical complete response are treated in a watch-and-wait policy, and patients with an incomplete response are treated with total mesorectal excision, is likely to be (cost)saving. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B177. RESULTADOS ONCOLÓGICOS Y COSTOS HOSPITALARIOS EN EL TRATAMIENTO DE PACIENTES CON CANCER DE RECTO: ACTITUD DE ESPERA-VIGILANCIA Y TRATAMIENTO QUIRÚRGICO ESTANDARD: Se sabe poco sobre el costo del tratamiento actual en casos de cancer de recto localmente avanzado, cuando se aplica una política de vigilancia y espera en aquellos pacientes que presentan una respuesta clínica completa después de radio-quimioterapia.El propósito final del presente estudio es dar a conocer el resultado oncológico y los costos hospitalarios de los pacientes que presentan una respuesta clínica completa después de radio-quimioterapia (actitud de vigilancia-espera) y los pacientes con una respuesta incompleta después luego de radio-quimioterapia (excisión total del mesorrecto-ETM).Estudio de cohortes.Hospitales académicos y no académicos.Todos aquellos pacientes tratados por un cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y que fueron seguidos con una política de vigilancia y espera o la ETM, en función de la respuesta clínica a la radio-quimioterapia.Políticas de vigilancia-espera, excisión total del mesorrecto.Sobrevida global libre de recurrencia local, metástasis a distancia, sobrevida libre de enfermedad y costos hospitalarios durante un período de seguimiento de dos años.Se incluyeron 292 pacientes diagnosticados de cancer de recto localmente avanzado. La edad media fue de 65,1 años, 64,7% eran de sexo masculino. Se incluyeron 105 pacientes en el subgrupo de vigilancia-espera, y 187 en el subgrupo de excisión total del mesorrecto. Ambos subgrupos mostraron optimos resultados oncológicos. Los costos hospitalarios se dividieron en cinco categorías: costos de cirugía primaria; costos de quimioterapia adyuvante; costos de exámenes; costos de cirugía adicional; y costos del tratamiento de rebrote / metástasis. Los costos medios por paciente fueron de &OV0556; 6.713 (subgrupo de espera-vigilancia) y &OV0556; 17.108 (subgrupo de excisión total del mesorrecto) durante los primeros dos años.Analisis de costos desde una perspectiva hospitalaria durante un seguimiento de dos años, estudio parcialmente retrospectivo, no comparativo.La sobrevida general fue optima en ambos subgrupos y comparable con la literatura. El costo promedio por paciente difiere entre el subgrupo de vigilancia y espera (&OV0556; 6.713) con el subgrupo de la ETM(&OV0556; 17.108). No se pudieron comparar definitivamente ambos grupos. Basados en los resultados del presente estudio, es probable que la estrategia actual, en la que los pacientes con respuesta clínica completa sean tratados con una política de vigilancia y espera, presenten muy probablemente un cierto ahorro en el costo con relación a los pacientes con una respuesta incompleta tratados con excisión total del mesorrecto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B177. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

A Population-Based Study of 90-Day Hospital Cost and Utilization Associated With Robotic Surgery in Colon and Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer remains contentious with most data arising from small, single-institution studies. METHODS: Stage I-III colorectal cancer resections from 2008 to 2014 were identified in New York State. Propensity score-adjusted negative binomial models were used to compare cost and utilization between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections. RESULTS: A total of 12,218 patients were identified. For colectomy, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 3%, and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 13%. For rectal resection, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 7% and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 32%. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in cost across the surgical approaches, both in overall and stratified analyses. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with decreased 90-d hospital utilization compared with open surgery in intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections were not associated with a hospital cost benefit after 90 d compared with open but were associated with decreased hospital utilization. Conversion to open resection was common, and efforts should be made to prevent them. Future research should continue to measure how robotic and laparoscopic approaches can add value to the health care system.

Surveillance Intensity Comparison by Risk for T1NX Locally Excised Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Cost-Effective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors. METHODS: A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73-94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed. CONCLUSIONS: Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.

Comparison of Effective Cost and Complications after Abdominoperineal Resection: Primary Closure versus Flap Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Flap reconstruction is recommended for select patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection to mitigate complications. However, the clinical effectiveness and financial implications of flap reconstruction remain unknown. The authors aim to compare the costs and complications for patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection with and without flap reconstruction. METHODS: The Truven MarketScan Databases (2009 to 2016) were used to perform retrospective population-based analysis of colorectal carcinoma patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection with and without flap reconstruction. Univariate and multivariable logistic regressions were used to study effective cost (cumulative cost/number of healthy days) and complications. RESULTS: Of 2557 total abdominoperineal resection patients, 194 patients underwent flap reconstruction. Patients undergoing flap reconstruction had a higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (p = 0.004) and were more likely to have local invasion (p < 0.001). At 6 months postoperatively, there were no differences in complications between the two groups (p = 0.116). Flap reconstruction was protective against intraabdominal infections (OR, 0.4; 95 percent CI, 0.2 to 0.9; p = 0.033) but conferred an increased risk of wound complications (OR, 1.5; 95 percent CI, 1.0 to 2.3; p = 0.039). Total median cost of care was similar (abdominoperineal resection alone, $40,050; abdominoperineal resection with flap, $41,380; p = 0.456). Effective cost was greater for abdominoperineal resection alone ($259/healthy day) than abdominoperineal resection with flap ($186/healthy day) but was not statistically significant (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with flap reconstruction displayed a higher comorbidity score and more extensive disease, but these unfavorable factors did not result in a higher complication rate, total cost, or effective cost. Therefore, flap reconstruction for complex perineal defects confers a benefit in select patients and is a judicious use of health care resources. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Drivers of Inpatient Costs After Colorectal Surgery Within a Publicly Funded Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality associated with colorectal resections are responsible for significant healthcare use. Identification of efficiencies is vital for decreasing healthcare cost in a resource-limited system. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the short-term cost associated with all colon and rectal resections. DESIGN: This was a population-based, retrospective administrative analysis. SETTINGS: This analysis was composed of all colon and rectal resections with anastomosis in Canada (excluding Quebec) between 2008 and 2015. PATIENTS: A total of 108,304 patients ≥18 years of age who underwent colon and/or rectal resections with anastomosis were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total short-term inpatient cost for the index admission and the incremental cost of each comorbidity and complication (in 2014 Canadian dollars) were measured. Cost predictors were modeled using hierarchical linear regression and Monte Carlo Markov Chain estimation. RESULTS: Multivariable regression demonstrated that the adjusted average cost of a 50-year-old man undergoing open colon resection for benign disease with no comorbidities or complications was $9270 ((95% CI, $7146-$11,624; p = <0.001). With adjustment for complications, laparoscopic colon resections carried a cost savings of $1390 (95% CI, $1682-$1099; p = <0.001) compared with open resections. Surgical complications were the main driver for increased cost, because anastomotic leaks added $9129 (95% CI, $8583-$9670; p = <0.001). Medical complications such as renal failure requiring dialysis ($16,939 (95% CI, $15,548-$18,314); p = <0.001) carried significant cost. Complications requiring reoperation cost $16,313 (95% CI, $15,739-$16,886; p = <0.001). The costliest complication cumulatively was reoperation, which exceeded $95 million dollars over the course of the study. LIMITATIONS: Inherent biases associated with administrative databases limited this study. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and surgical complications (especially those requiring reoperation) are major drivers of increased resource use. Laparoscopic colorectal resection with or without adjustment for complications carries a clear cost advantage. There is opportunity for considerable cost savings by reducing specific complications or by preoperatively optimizing select patients susceptible to costly complication. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A839.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Followed by Radical Resection Versus Conventional Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive surgery with total mesorectal excision is the mainstay of treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Multimodality therapy improves long-term survival. Current standards advise neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Nationally, compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy is only 32%. New research evaluates the effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy: complete chemotherapy and chemoradiation before surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the favored treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer by comparing the cost-effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. DESIGN: Decision analytical modeling using long-term costs and 5-year disease-free survival was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness after total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters. SETTINGS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing data perspective was adopted and outcomes modeled according to local and national databases and literature consensus. PATIENTS: Adult patients with stage II or III rectal cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness in disease-free life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit were determined over a 5-year posttreatment period. The favored strategy was determined based on cost-effectiveness and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness for total neoadjuvant therapy was 40,708 $/life-year, and, for conventional therapy, cost-effectiveness was 44,248 $/life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that, for an estimated total neoadjuvant therapy completion rate of 90%, total neoadjuvant therapy would remain the dominant strategy for any adjuvant chemotherapy completion rate of less than 93%. LIMITATIONS: The samples used to calculate completion rates are small, and survival probabilities are based on existing literature, local database values, and consensus estimates. The model encompasses a 5-year time period from diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis shows that a strategy of total neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical surgery is favored over the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. Sensitivity analysis shows that a low rate of adjuvant chemotherapy administration plays a key role in decreasing the cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A942.

First, Do No Harm: Rethinking Routine Diversion in Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: Although diverting stomas have reduced anastomotic leak rates after sphincter-preserving proctectomy in some series, the effectiveness of routine diversion among a broad population of rectal cancer patients remains controversial. We hypothesized that routine temporary diversion is not associated with decreased rates of leak or reintervention in cancer patients at large undergoing sphincter-sparing procedures. STUDY DESIGN: The Florida State Inpatient Database (AHRQ, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project) was queried for patients undergoing sphincter-preserving proctectomy for cancer (2005 to 2014). Matched cohorts defined by diversion status were created using propensity scores based on patient and hospital characteristics. Incidence of anastomotic leak, nonelective reintervention, and readmission were compared, and cumulative 90-day inpatient costs were calculated. RESULTS: Of 8,620 eligible sphincter-sparing proctectomy patients, 1,992 matched pairs were analyzed. Leak rates did not significantly vary between groups (4.5% vs 4.3%; p = 0.76), but diversion was associated with significantly higher odds of nonelective reintervention (2.37; 95% CI 1.90 to 2.96) and readmission (1.55; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.81) compared with undiverted patients. Median costs were higher among those diverted (US$21,325 vs US$15,050; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No association between diversion and anastomotic leak was found. However, temporary diversion was associated with increased incidence of nonelective reinterventions, readmissions, and higher costs. We therefore challenge the paradigm of routine diversion in rectal cancer operations. Additional study is needed to identify which patients would benefit most from diversion.

Sphincter-saving proctectomy for rectal cancer with NO COIL® transanal tube and without ostoma. Clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness and quality of life in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common invasive cancers, and it is responsible for considerable physical and psychosocial morbidity specially in older patients. However, only few reports focused on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of rectal cancer patients undergone to surgery. This retrospective study compares short-term and long-term outcomes in rectal cancer patients with more and less than 75 years of age. METHODS: Four hundred consecutive patients underwent radical surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma and they were collected in a prospective institutional database and divided into two groups: group 1 (≥75 years, N.=98); group 2 (<75 years, N.=302). Rectal anterior resection (RAR) with sphincter-saving restorative proctectomy and with application of silicone transanal tube NO COIL® 60-80 mm long, was the only procedure considered. Main clinical and pathological data were assessed and compared. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between the two groups were detected regard to comorbidities and the emergency presentation. Overall survival is lower in patients over 75 age, but cancer-related survival is not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although advanced age is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, in our experience, itself is not a contraindication for surgical sphincter-saving proctetomy in rectal cancer patients. The absence of a stoma also improved the cost effectiveness and patients' quality of life in both groups: psychological morbidity, sexuality, levels of anxiety and depression, body image.

Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon's experience. METHODS: From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency-gain curve (p-g curve) by the surgeon with each platform. RESULTS: In both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p-g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1-19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20-40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290 min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon's experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.

Stable pneumorectum using an inline glove - a cost-effective technique to facilitate transanal total mesorectal excision.

AIM: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach for resection of the rectum. Use of a standard insufflator to create pneumorectum, however, results in bellowing-large heaving motions from insufflation of air that can frustrate surgery. We report the successful application of our technique, stable pneumorectum using an inline glove (SPRING), for the performance of transanal rectal excision in a series of 17 patients using a standard laparoscopic insufflator. METHOD: A retrospective review of 17 patients using the SPRING technique was performed between October 2015 and October 2016. Characteristics of these patients were evaluated, and technique-related short-term outcome was reviewed. RESULTS: The SPRING technique was successfully used in patients who underwent both minimally invasive (n = 14) and open (n = 3) approaches in the abdominal stage of the surgery. In the 12 patients who had rectal cancer for whom SPRING was used to facilitate taTME there were no conversions to an alternative access for rectal resection, the median duration of the TME part of the operation was 95 min (62-147) and there was one R1 resection (8%). Billowing was not a significant problem in any of the 17 patients during the surgery. CONCLUSION: In this case series we have successfully shown the feasibility of the SPRING technique as a practical and cost-effective solution to the problem of billowing during taTME.

Enhanced Recovery after Colorectal Surgery: Can We Afford Not to Use It?

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) aim to reduce length of stay without adversely affecting short-term outcomes. High pharmaceutical costs associated with ERP regimens, however, remain a significant barrier to widespread implementation. We hypothesized that ERP would reduce hospital costs after elective colorectal resections, despite the use of more expensive pharmaceutical agents. STUDY DESIGN: An ERP was implemented in January 2016 at our institution. We collected data on consecutive colorectal resections for 1 year before adoption of ERP (traditional, n = 160) and compared them with consecutive resections after universal adoption of ERP (n = 146). Short-term surgical outcomes, total direct costs, and direct hospital pharmacy costs were compared between patients who received the ERP and those who did not. RESULTS: After implementation of the ERP, median length of stay decreased from 5.0 to 3.0 days (p < 0.01). There were no differences in 30-day complications (8.1% vs 8.9%) or hospital readmission (11.9% vs 11.0%). The ERP patients required significantly less narcotics during their index hospitalization (211.7 vs 720.2 morphine equivalence units; p < 0.01) and tolerated a regular diet 1 day sooner (p < 0.01). Despite a higher daily pharmacy cost ($477 per day vs $318 per day in the traditional cohort), the total direct pharmacy cost for the hospitalization was reduced in ERP patients ($1,534 vs $1,859; p = 0.016). Total direct cost was also lower in ERP patients ($9,791 vs $11,508; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERP for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection substantially reduced length of stay, total hospital cost, and direct pharmacy cost without increasing complications or readmission rates. Enhanced recovery pathway after colorectal resection has both clinical and financial benefits. Widespread implementation has the potential for a dramatic impact on healthcare costs.