Bundled Payments for Appendectomy: a Model of Financial Implications to Institutions.

BACKGROUND: Bundled payments are increasingly becoming common in surgery, yet little is known regarding their potential impact on reimbursements for patients presenting with acute appendicitis. This study examines the financial impact of bundled payments for acute appendicitis. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all open or laparoscopic appendectomies between July 2014 and June 2017. Patients that were not candidates for surgery were not included in this review. RESULTS: Of the total 741 patients, 42.1% were diagnosed with complicated acute appendicitis. The median length of stay was 1 day (range, 0 to 21 days). The median hospital cost was $4183 (range, $2075 to $71,023). The 90-day readmission rate was 3.2%, with a mean cost of $5025 per readmission (range, $1595 to $10,795). Length of stay, hospital costs, and 90-day readmissions were significantly higher for complicated versus uncomplicated acute appendicitis. In our current fee-for-service model, hospital reimbursements resulted in margins of - 4.0% to 24.6% depending on the severity of disease. If we assume that bundled payments do not reimburse for readmissions, we estimate that our hospital would incur losses of - 5.7% for patients with acute appendicitis with localized peritonitis and - 20.2% for patients with acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis. CONCLUSIONS: As bundled payments become more common, hospitals may incur significant losses for acute appendicitis under a model that does not reflect the heterogeneous nature of patients requiring appendectomies. These losses can range up to - 20.2% for complicated cases. Improving clinical outcomes by reducing readmissions may mitigate some of these anticipated losses.

Esophageal conduit necrosis.

A cumulative review of the prevalence of esophageal conduit necrosis is summarized in Table 4. The spectrum of conduit ischemia is broad and includes cases in which there is anastomotic leak or stricture as well as cases in which there is frank graft necrosis. Many of the studies that the authors reviewed do not specify the exact nature of postoperative ischemic complications or how they are defined. Therefore, postoperative conduit ischemia is reported globally. Based on the authors' review, average rates of ischemic complications for stomach, colon, and jejunum are 3.2%, 5.1%, and 4.2%, respectively. Results for colon and jejunum include results for both long- and short-segment grafting. Most reports that compare outcomes using different esophageal conduits demonstrate findings similar to the authors'. Davis and colleagues compared results with colon versus gastric conduit esophageal reconstruction. They found that operative mortality, anastomotic leaks, and conduit ischemia rates were all lower for the stomach than for the colon. Specifically, ischemia of the stomach conduit was 0.5%, compared with 2.4% for the colon conduit. Moorehead and Wong, in a large series of 760 esophagectomy patients in whom the stomach, colon, or jejunum was used for reconstruction, demonstrated that the stomach had the lowest incidence of conduit ischemia (1%), followed by jejunum (11.3%), then colon (13.3%). Some of the factors they identified as correlating with the risk of ischemia include length of conduit, technique of stomach graft preparation, whether anastomosis is in the neck or chest, and route of passage of the conduit. Mansour and colleagues compared their results using bowel interposition (either colon or jejunum) to reconstruct the resected esophagus. The authors report an overall mortality of 5.9%, and 3% conduit ischemia. All ischemia was noted in the colon conduits harvested from the left side. No ischemic complications were noted from jejunal segments. Briel and colleagues compared stomach versus colon conduit use after esophagectomy. They note an overall incidence of ischemia of 9.2%. In their series, the incidence of ischemia for stomach and colon was 10.4% and 7.4%, respectively. Anastomotic leak and stricture rates, both thought to be sequelae of ischemia, also were lower for colon conduit use than for stomach conduit. Multivariate analysis identified patient comorbidities as the only independent risk factor for conduit ischemia. The authors use their findings to support the preferential use of colon conduits rather than stomach conduits. The incidence of colon conduit ischemia (7.4%) is directly in line with all other published results, including the cumulative review by the authors of this article, whereas the rate of stomach conduit ischemia (10.4%) is considerable higher than in most other studies. Esophageal conduit necrosis is an uncommon but disastrous complication of esophageal surgery. Careful selection of patients for surgery, preoperative evaluation of the proposed conduit, and meticulous operative technique are the best defenses against conduit ischemia. Postoperatively, surgeons should have a high index of suspicion for this complication. Unexplained tachycardia, respiratory failure, leukocytosis, or any evidence for graft or anastomotic leak should prompt a search for conduit ischemia. The diagnosis is made by contrast esophagography, endoscopy, or direct operative inspection. There is no documented salvage technique once ischemia is identified. Treatment for mild cases may be supportive, with or without management of anastomotic leak. More severe cases of necrosis require débridement and conduit take-down with proximal esophageal diversion and placement of enteral feeding tubes. Reconstruction can be planned for later if possible. The majority of the data demonstrates that risk of ischemia is related to conduit type, length of conduit, comorbidities, and operative technique. The stomach has the lowest reported incidence of conduit ischemia, followed by the jejunum, and colon. In the future, methods to predict conduit ischemia more accurately at the time of surgery may further reduce the incidence of this disastrous complication.

Parathyroidectomy in secondary hyperparathyroidism: Is there an optimal operative management?

BACKGROUND: Subtotal parathyroidectomy (SPTX) and total PTX with autotransplantation (TPTX + AT) are both accepted operations for secondary hyperparathyroidism (2HPT). Studies have shown the 2 procedures to have similar rates of recurrent or persistent HPT (0% to 10%). The majority of these reports are small case series and despite apparently similar outcomes; the optimal operative management for 2HPT remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there were any clinical outcome differences between these apparently comparable operations. METHODS: A meta-analysis of 53 publications on reoperative operation for 2HPT from 1983 to 2004 identified 501 patients who had undergone an operation for recurrent or persistent 2HPT. The data evaluated included the type of initial operation, the need for reoperative operation as it related to the type of initial operation, and the intraoperative findings. RESULTS: The initial operation had been a SPTX in 36% and a TPTX + AT in 64% of patients. Reoperative operation was for persistent 2HPT in 82 of 485 (17%) and for recurrent 2HPT in 403 of 485 (83%) patients. Findings at reoperation included: autograft hyperplasia (49%), supernumerary glands (20%), remnant hyperplasia (17%), a missed in situ gland (7%), and a negative exploration (5%). Supernumerary glands, missed in situ glands, and negative explorations occurred at equal rates for both operations. Reoperation determined that inadequate cervical explorations occurred in 42% of patients who had undergone a SPTX and in 34% of patients who had undergone a TPTX + AT. CONCLUSIONS: Operative failures occur because of the limitations in preoperative localization, inadequate exploration, and the natural history of hyperplastic parathyroid tissue. The initial operation should include an attempt to localize supernumerary glands both pre- and intra-operatively.