Reducing Operating Room Cost: Comparing Attending and Surgical Trainee Perceptions About the Implementation of Supply Receipts.

BACKGROUND: As operating room (OR) expenditures increase, faculty and surgical trainees will play a key role in curbing future costs. However, supply cost utilization varies widely among providers and, despite requirements for cost education during surgical training, little is known about trainees' comfort discussing these topics. To improve OR cost transparency, our institution began delivering real-time supply "receipts" to faculty and trainees after each surgical case. This study compares faculty and surgical trainees' perceptions about supply receipts and their effect on individual practice and cultural change. STUDY DESIGN: Faculty and surgical trainees (residents and fellows) from all adult surgical specialties at a large academic center were emailed separate surveys. RESULTS: A total of 120 faculty (30.0% response rate) and 119 trainees (35.7% response rate) completed the survey. Compared with trainees, faculty are more confident discussing OR costs (p < 0.001). Two-thirds of trainees report discussing OR costs with faculty as opposed to 77.0% of faculty who acknowledge having these conversations (p = 0.08). Both groups showed a strong commitment to reduce OR expenditures, with 87.3% of faculty and 90.0% of trainees expressing a responsibility to curb OR costs (p = 0.84). After 1 year of implementation, faculty continue to have high interest levels in supply receipts (82.4%) and many surgeons review them after each case (67.7%). In addition, 74.3% of faculty are now aware of how to lower OR costs and 52.5% have changed the OR supplies they use. Trainees, in particular, desire additional cost-reducing efforts at our institution (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Supply receipts have been well received and have led to meaningful cultural changes. However, trainees are less confident discussing these issues and desire a greater emphasis on OR cost in their curriculum.

Should I Buy This? A Decision-Making Tool for Surgical Value-Based Purchasing.

Many considerations affect the value that a new instrument or product may generate in a surgical practice. This review serves as a guide for surgeons considering new purchases and/or wishing to advocate for hospital acquisition of new items. A summary of data from academic and industry practices is presented, with pertinent examples using relevant surgical devices such as disposable devices, laparoscopic trocars, and otologic endoscopes. Surgeons considering incorporating a new instrument or technology within their practice should weigh the following factors before decision making: patient and clinical care factors, surgeon and care team factors, and hospital factors such as cost, revenue, and sourcing. A surgeon well-versed in stakeholder interests who is involved in the purchase of a new instrument may have significant influence in value-based decision making that not only affects his or her practice but ultimately maximizes value for the patient.

Operating Costs of Full-endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery in Japan.

For full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy, operating costs are also important because expensive equipment are necessary. We surveyed the operating costs of surgical equipment necessary for full-endoscopic surgery together with surgical procedure reimbursement fees. A total of 295 cases of full-endoscopic surgery via a transforaminal approach were retrospectively analyzed. We calculated the frequency of damage and the unit purchase price of devices such as endoscopes, and surgical instruments such as grasping forceps for nucleotomy, high-speed drill bar, and bipolar forceps, and examined the operating costs in Japanese yen against the procedure fee per case. Endoscope breakage occurred seven times, and a payment of ¥760,000 was necessary for trade-in and purchase of a new endoscope. The total breakage number of grasping forceps was 58, and the purchase price per unit was ¥116,000. Therefore, a total of ¥12,020,000 was required for the 295 cases, and the calculated operating cost that accompanies equipment breakage was ¥40,000 per case. In addition, about ¥118,000 was required for disposable bipolar forceps and high-speed drill bar to be used intraoperatively for each case. Thus, for one case it is calculated that total ¥158,000 is utilized for equipment from the surgical reimbursement fee per case specified by the Japanese Ministry of Health being ¥303,900. Minimally invasive procedures provide great benefit to patients; however, the eventual contribution to hospital profits is small and may not be sufficient. To resolve this issue, the cost of surgical equipment should be lowered and/or the surgical reimbursement fee of the full-endoscopic surgery should be raised.

Cost containment: an experience with surgeon education and universal preference cards at two institutions.

BACKGROUND: As the cost of health care increases in the US, focus has been placed upon efficiency, cost reduction, and containment of spending. Operating room costs play a significant role in this spending. We investigated whether surgeon education and universal preference cards can have an impact on reducing the disposable supply costs for common laparoscopic general surgery procedures. METHODS: General surgeons at two institutions participated in an educational session about the costs of the operative supplies used to perform laparoscopic appendectomies and cholecystectomies. All the surgeons at one institution agreed upon a universal preference card, with other supplies opened only by request. At the other, no universal preference cards were created, and surgeons were free to modify their own existing preference cards. Case cost data for these procedures were collected for each institution pre- (July 2014-December 2014) and post-intervention (February 2015-November 2017). RESULTS: At the institution with an education only program, there was no statistically significant change in supply costs after the intervention. At the institution that intervened with the combined education and universal preference card program, there was a statistically significant supply cost decrease for these common laparoscopic procedures combined. This significant cost decrease persisted for each appendectomies and cholecystectomies when analyzed independently as well (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, surgeon education alone was not effective in reducing operating room disposable supply costs. Surgeon education, combined with the implementation of universal preference cards, significantly maintains reductions in operating room supply costs. As health care costs continue to increase in the US and internationally, universal preference cards can be an effective tool to contain cost for common laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

Evaluation of Operative Waste in a Military Medical Center: Analysis of Operating Room Cost and Waste during Surgical Cases.

Operating rooms (ORs) contribute to at least 40 per cent of hospital costs. There is an existing cost waste in ORs for surgical devices that are opened without being used. There is a paucity of data evaluating the hospital cost of opened but unused OR supplies. The goal of this observational study is to examine the cost of opened but unused OR supplies for general surgery cases. We performed a quality improvement project of OR cost waste by observing 30 cases. Surgical cases of a senior surgeon who had been at the institution for more than five years were evaluated for items opened appropriately and whether the items are used. The cases evaluated ranged from open hernia repairs to robotic-assisted hernia repairs. We found that the cost of instruments opened but not used was $4528.18. Of the cases evaluated, we found that a range of 0 per cent to 27 per cent of total items were wasted, an average of 8.3 per cent. We found that for the open inguinal hernia case, there was minimal waste. The highest waste was among complex cases such as the robotic-assisted inguinal hernia with an average waste and cost of 15.8 per cent and $379. We found that on average for less complex cases such as open inguinal hernia repairs, $1.44 was potentially wasted per case, whereas for more complex cases up to $379 was wasted per case. We identified the outdated preference cards, lack of instrument knowledge, circulating nurse, and surgical technician distractions as reasons for contributing to waste.

Surgical Equipment Price Awareness Amongst Obstetrician-Gynecologists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians typically have little information of surgical device pricing, although this trend has not been studied in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. We therefore aimed to determine how accurately obstetrician-gynecologists estimate surgical device prices, and to identify factors associated with accuracy. METHODS: An anonymous survey was emailed to all obstetrician-gynecologist attendings, fellows, and residents at 3 teaching hospitals in a single healthcare system in Arizona. We obtained demographic data, perceptions of price transparency and self-rated price knowledge, and price estimates for 31 surgical devices. RESULTS: After participants provided consent and demographics, they then estimated the purchasing price of 31 devices. We defined price accuracy as being within ±10% of the hospital's purchasing price. Fifty-six of the 170 (32.9%) invitees completed the survey and 48 (28.2%) provided price estimates. On average, participants identified 1.9 items correctly (6.1%; range, 0-7 items) out of 31 with no difference in accuracy based on seniority, surgical volume, physician reimbursement structure, nor subspecialty practice-focus. All (100%) respondents felt pricing should be transparent, and only 1.8% felt it is at least somewhat transparent. CONCLUSION: We found that price-estimate accuracy was very low and had no association with any of the demographics. Also notable was the perception that pricing is not transparent despite a unanimous desire for transparency. Although physicians reported a preference for using less-expensive surgical devices, we conclude that physicians are unequipped to make cost-conscious decisions highlighting a large potential for education.

Awareness of surgical expenditure amongst UK trainees and consultants: A questionnaire study.

INTRODUCTION: Limited knowledge of surgical device and service costs restricts a surgeon's ability to make cost efficient choices and contribute to the efficiency savings required by the NHS to reduce the financial deficit. This study aims to assess how aware surgeons are of surgical equipment and regularly used services. METHODS: A single sided hard copy questionnaire asking for the estimate cost of 24 surgical devices/services was handed out to individuals at two separate UK annual conferences. Items and services which are regularly used and/or clinically significant were selected and, where possible, alternatives to those items were included for comparison. Participants were also asked for their grade and specialty. An estimate was deemed correct if it was within 20% of the actual cost. Planned subgroup analyses for grade and specialty were performed. RESULTS: The 143 participants consisted of 23 (16%) consultants, 39 (27%) registrars, 33 (23%) SHOs and 48 (34%) foundation doctors. Of the 95 participants who were SHO grade or more senior, 67 (71%) work within general surgery. Across all items, only 9.6% of estimates were correct. There was no statistically significant difference between training levels (consultant 11.5%, registrar 10.1%, SHO 8.6%, foundation 8.9%; p = 0.253). Participants were significantly less successful in correctly estimating the cost of high value (>£150 [USD $198; EUR €175]) items (8.5% vs. 11.1%); p = 0.011, and the cost of devices as compared to the cost of services (7.4% vs. 15.0%); p = 0.001. CONCLUSION: Surgeons across all grades and specialties have poor knowledge of device and service costs. It is important that this improves in order to allow surgeons to make a meaningful contribution to NHS efficiency savings by making informed decisions about their use of devices and services.

Feasibility of robotic surgery in a developing country, a public sector Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical feasibility of robotic platform and to calculate cost for sustaining it.. METHODS: The study was conducted at Sindh Government Qatar Hospital and Civil Hospital Karachi from October 11, 2011, to August 30, 2017. Feasibility was assessed in terms of clinical outcome i.e. surgical complications, duration of stay and readmissions. The cost of doing an individual procedure was calculated along with the projected cost for 150, 200 and 250 cases per year. SPSS 23 was used for data analysis.. RESULTS: Of the 119 patients, 45(37.8%) were males and 74(62.2%) were females. Overall mean age was 42.10}13.40 years (range: 21-80 years. Mean hospital stay was 3.59}3 (range: 1-19 days). Complications occurred in 17(14.3%) patients ranging from wound infection 7(5.9%), bleeding 5(4.2%), intra-abdominal abscess 3(2.5%) and recurrence 2(1.7%). The total cost of robotic platform was Rs320 million with an annual maintenance contract of 10% of the total cost. The mean cost of performing a robotic procedure was Rs.389,263.05}39,249.63 (range: Rs252,823.09- Rs456,842.79).. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery was found to be a feasible and viable option. The major hindrance was the cost involved in setting up the system and recurring costs in terms of disposables.

Real-world costs of transvenous lead extraction: the challenge for reimbursement.

AIMS: Transvenous lead extraction is challenging, often requiring specialist equipment and prolonged hospital admission. A single tariff or itemized costs may be available for reimbursement. Due to limited data relating to the costs of transvenous extraction, it is unclear whether either form of reimbursement is adequate. We aim to describe accurately the total real-world costs of managing patients undergoing transvenous extraction at a single, large centre. We further aim to consider the additional costs of device reimplantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: At a single UK extraction centre, a retrospective, patient level service line analysis was undertaken, during a complete financial year. Seventy-four patients required transvenous extraction (47 infected and 27 non-infected; 156 leads). Sixty-nine procedures (93%) were performed under general anaesthesia, with a median time in theatre of 95 min [interquartile range (IQR) 71-120]. Specialist extraction tools were required for 130 leads (83%). The median hospitalization duration was 3 days (IQR 1-8). The mean cost of extraction was £9228 (±4099); infected £10 727 (±4178) and non-infected £6619 (±2269). With the additional costs of device reimplantation, the overall mean cost rose to £17 574 (±12 882); infected £22 615 (±13 343) and non-infected £8801 (±5007). At the time of this study, the UK NHS tariff was £2530 for elective and £4764 for non-elective extraction, covering barely half of the real costs. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated a substantial difference between the real-world cost of extraction and the UK NHS tariff. Extracting centres should scrutinize their practice, including the timing of reimplantation.

Quantifying the real-world cost saving from using surgical adjuncts to prevent complications during cataract surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical adjuncts in cataract surgery are often perceived as sometimes necessary, always expensive, particularly in the "lean" cost-saving era. However, prevention of a surgical complication, rather than subsequent management, should always be the preferred strategy. We wished to model real-world costs associated with surgical adjuncts use and test the maxim for cataract surgery-"if you think of it, use it". METHODS: We compared UK list prices for equipment and related costs of preventing vitreous loss (VL) via use of surgical adjuncts vs its subsequent management in a hypothetical cataract surgery scenario of a white swollen cataract with a moderately dilated pupil. RESULTS: The original surgery costs for the "cautious with adjuncts, no complications" approach was £943.54, including adjuncts costing £137.47. In the "minimalist, no adjunct" scenario, management of VL using the Anterior Vitrectomy Kit cost £142.45, and additional management and follow-up costs resulted in total cost of £1178.20 (£234.66 (25%) more expensive). If left aphakic, an additional operation for secondary iris clip IOL insertion and further follow-up to address the impact of the complication ultimately cost £2124.67 overall. An additional initial spend on surgical adjuncts of £137.47 could potentially prevent £1293.60 (9× increase) in direct costs in this scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Through simple scenario modelling, we have demonstrated the cost benefits provided by the use of precautionary surgical adjuncts during cataract surgery. VL costs significantly more in terms of complication management and follow-up. This supports the cataract surgeon's maxim-"if you think of it, use it".

Lean and Green Hand Surgery.

Health care in the United States is both expensive and wasteful. The cost of health care in the United States continues to increase every year. Health care spending for 2016 is estimated at $3.35 trillion. Per capita spending ($10,345 per person) is more than twice the average of other developed countries. The United States also leads the world in solid waste production (624,700 metric tons of waste in 2011). The health care industry is second only to the food industry in annual waste production. Each year, health care facilities in the United States produce 4 billion pounds of waste (660 tons per day), with as much as 70%, or around 2.8 billion pounds, produced directly by operating rooms. Waste disposal also accounts for up to 20% of a hospital's annual environmental services budget. Since 1992, waste production by hospitals has increased annually by a rate of at least 15%, due in part to the increased usage of disposables. Reduction in operating room waste would decrease both health care costs and potential environmental hazards. In 2015, the American Association for Hand Surgery along with the American Society for Surgery of the Hand, American Society for Peripheral Nerve Surgery, and the American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery began the "Lean and Green" surgery project to reduce the amount of waste generated by hand surgery. We recently began our own "Lean and Green" project in our institution. Using "minor field sterility" surgical principles and Wide Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT), both surgical costs and surgical waste were decreased while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction. As the current reimbursement model changes from quantity to quality, "Lean and Green" surgery will play a role in the future health care system.

Assessing the costs of disposable and reusable supplies wasted during surgeries.

BACKGROUND: The management of disposable and reusable supplies might have an impact on the cost efficiency of the Operating Room (OR). This study aimed to evaluate the cost and reasons for wasted supplies in the OR during surgical procedures. METHODS: We conducted an observational and prospective study in a French university hospital. We assessed the cost of wasted supplies in the OR (defined by opened unused devices), the reasons for the wastage, and the circulator retrievals. At the end, we assessed the perception of surgeons and nurses relative to the supply wastage. RESULTS: Fifty routine procedures and five non-scheduled procedures were observed in digestive (n = 20), urologic (n = 20) and gynecologic surgery (n = 15). The median cost [IQR] of open unused devices was €4.1 [0.5; 10.5] per procedure. Wasted supplies represented up to 20.1% of the total cost allocated to surgical supplies. Considering the 8000 surgical procedures performed in these three surgery departments, the potential annual cost savings were 100 000€. The most common reason of wastage was an anticipation of the surgeon's needs. The circulating nurse spent up to 26.3% of operative time outside of the OR, mainly attending to an additional demand from the surgeon (30%). Most of the survey respondents (68%) agreed that knowing supply prices would change their behavior. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the OR is a major source of wasted hospital expenditure and an area wherein an intervention would have a significant impact. Reducing wasted supplies could improve the cost efficiency of the OR and also decrease its ecological impact.

Surgeon Variation in Intraoperative Supply Cost for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is Intraoperative Supply Cost Associated with Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: With increased scrutiny on the quality and cost of health care, surgeons must be mindful of their outcomes and resource use. We evaluated surgeon-specific intraoperative supply cost (ISC) for pancreaticoduodenectomy and examined whether ISC was associated with patient outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing open pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2012 and March 2015 were included. Outcomes were tracked prospectively through postoperative day 90, and ISC was defined as the facility cost of single-use surgical items and instruments, plus facility charges for multiuse equipment. Multivariate logistic regression was used to test associations between ISC and patient outcomes using repeated measures at the surgeon level. RESULTS: There were 249 patients who met inclusion criteria. Median ISC was $1,882 (interquartile range [IQR] $1,497 to $2,281). Case volume for 6 surgeons ranged from 18 to 66. Median surgeon-specific ISC ranged from $1,496 to $2,371. Greater case volume was associated with decreased ISC (p < 0.001). Overall, ISC was not predictive of postoperative complications (p = 0.702) or total hospitalization expenditures (p = 0.195). At the surgeon level, surgeon-specific ISC was not associated with the surgeon-specific incidence of severe complication or any wound infection (p > 0.227 for both), but was associated with delayed gastric emptying (p = 0.004) and postoperative pancreatic fistula (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a single-institution cohort of 249 pancreaticoduodenectomies, high-volume surgeons tended to be low-cost surgeons. Across the cohort, ISC was not associated with outcomes. At the surgeon level, associations were noted between ISC and complications, but these may be attributable to unmeasured differences in the postoperative management of patients. These findings suggest that quality improvement efforts to restructure resource use toward more cost-effective practice may not affect patient outcomes, although prospective monitoring of safety and effectiveness must be of the utmost concern.

[Hybrid operating rooms versus conventional operating rooms : Economic comparisons in vascular surgery using the example of endovascular aneurysm repair]. / Hybridoperationssaal vs. konventioneller Operationssaal : Betriebswirtschaftliche Gegenüberstellung in der Gefäßchirurgie am Beispiel der endovaskulären Aneurysmachirurgie.

BACKGROUND: With changing treatment modalities in vascular surgery towards incorporating more endovascular solutions, increased numbers of hybrid operating theatres are being introduced to meet the sterility and imaging quality requirements. These cost-intensive acquisitions however have never been evaluated from an economic perspective. In this study we evaluated cost-relevant parameters before and after the introduction of a hybrid operating room using the example of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The 4­year period before the introduction of a hybrid operating room were compared with the 4­year period following introduction. Between 2007 and 2010, 97 EVAR procedures were performed before the implementation of a hybrid operating room and 50 EVAR procedures were performed with a hybrid operating room (2012-2015). We evaluated process cost-relevant parameters (operating time) and diagnosis-related group (DRG) parameters (case load, case mix, case mix index). RESULTS: The operating time was significantly reduced on average by 23.5 min (120 min [102-140] vs. 96.5 min [90-120]; p < 0.0001) with a hybrid operating room. This led to a reduction in costs of 276.17 EUR for an EVAR procedure. The case load of EVAR increased from 308 cases from 2007-2010 to 380 cases from 2012-2015 . The associated case mix also increased from 1580 to 1986 points. The total number of case mix points of all managed operative interventions in the operating theatre before and after conversion to a hybrid operating room grew significantly by 17.33% from 8420 to 9880 (p < 0.03) in the compared time periods. CONCLUSION: With detailed, demand-oriented planning, a hybrid operating room can have a favourable economic effect due to a reduction of operating time and the overall lowering of process costs. Thus a refinancing in the long-term is feasible. In addition, this can lead to an increase in the total number and complexity of endovascular procedures.

The Fluoropen: a simple low-cost device to detect intraoperative fluorescein fluorescence in stereotactic needle biopsy of brain tumors.

BACKGROUND: The use of fluorescein fluorescence-guided stereotactic needle biopsy has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy and to expedite operative procedure in the stereotactic needle biopsy of high-grade gliomas. We developed a device (Fluoropen) for detecting fluorescence in brain tumor tissues obtained by fluorescein fluorescence-guided stereotactic needle biopsy. METHODS: The Fluoropen is a device consisting of a light source fitted with color filters to create the required emission and visualization wavelengths. The proof-of-concept study consisted of four consecutive patients who underwent fluorescein fluorescence-guided frameless stereotactic biopsy of brain tumor. Each sample was examined for the presence of fluorescence using the Fluoropen and compared with a microscope with fluorescence visualization capability. RESULTS: A total of six samples were obtained from four stereotactic needle biopsy procedures. Four out of five samples (80%) taken from the contrast-enhancing part of the tumors were shown to be fluorescent under the microscope fitted with fluorescence module and the Fluoropen. One non-contrast enhancing lesion was non-fluorescent using both the microscope fitted with fluorescence module and the Fluoropen. The Fluoropen was shown to have 100% concordance with the microscope fitted with fluorescence module. CONCLUSIONS: The Fluoropen is a low-cost and simple standalone device for the detection of fluorescein fluorescence that can expedite stereotactic needle biopsy by providing instant confirmation of the diagnostic sample and therefore avoid the need for an intraoperative frozen section. In patients with non-contrast enhancing tumors and those who were pre-treated with dexamethasone prior to surgery, fluorescein fluorescence-guided stereotactic needle biopsy will need to be used with caution.

Cost awareness of disposable surgical equipment and strategies for improvement: cross sectional survey and literature review.

A significant healthcare funding gap has been predicted over the coming years. NHS England has made transparency and cost efficiency a key priority. Healthcare technology accounts for a large portion of healthcare expenditure. The aim of the study was to establish the cost awareness of theatre staff for disposable surgical equipment and to review the current evidence around improving cost awareness. A cross sectional survey was performed. A questionnaire was distributed to consultants, registrars, core surgical trainees and theatre scrub practitioners within an NHS foundation trust and analysed using Microsoft excel 2010. Following the results, which indicated poor cost awareness amongst theatre staff, a literature review was performed to identify strategies to improving cost awareness in healthcare. The results showed that only 22% of all participants (n = 48) were able to estimate cost correctly. There was no significant difference in cost accuracy between surgeons or scrub practitioners. Strategies for improvement in cost awareness were identified. A lack of cost awareness was identified amongst theatre healthcare professionals for common disposable surgical equipment. This is an area which must improve through the use of proven strategies such as national programs, education, visible pricing and price feedback, as highlighted in this paper.

Funding innovation: Moving the business forward.

Gary F. Henry is the Principal Consultant of G F Henry and Associates, a management consulting firm based in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Henry has more than 30 years of distinguished experience, including CEO, CFO and COO roles in both established and start-up companies. Gary was named an Ernst & Young Virginia Entrepreneur of the Year in 2001.

Prophylactic clipping for the prevention of bleeding following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading colorectal lesions: an economic modeling study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Clinically significant bleeding (CSPEB) is the most common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions (LSLs), and is associated with morbidity and resource utilization. CSPEB occurs more frequently with proximal LSLs. Prophylactic clipping of the post-EMR defect may be beneficial in CSPEB prevention. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic clipping strategy. We hypothesized that prophylactic clipping in the proximal colon was cost-effective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An economic model was applied to outcomes from the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (ACE) Study. Clip distances of 3, 5, 8, and 10 mm were analyzed. The cost of treating CSPEB was determined from an independent costing agency. The funds needed to spend (FNS) was the cost incurred in order to prevent one episode of CSPEB. A break-even analysis was performed to determine cost equivalence of the costs of clipping and CSPEB. RESULTS: Outcomes of 1717 LSLs (mean size 35.8 mm; 52.6 % proximal colon) that underwent EMR were analyzed. The overall rate of CSPEB was 6.4 % (proximal 8.9 %; distal 3.7 %). Endoscopic management was required in 45 % of CSPEB episodes. With a clip distance of 3 mm, the expected cost of prophylactic clipping was €â€Š1106 per lesion compared with €â€Š157 per lesion for the expected cost of CSPEB without clipping. At 100 % clipping efficacy, the FNS was €â€Š14 826 (proximal and distal lesions €â€Š9309 and €â€Š29 540, respectively). A clip price of €â€Š10.35 was required for the cost of clipping to offset the cost of CSPEB. CONCLUSIONS: A prophylactic clipping strategy is not cost-effective and at present cannot be justified for all lesions or selectively for lesions in the proximal colon. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01368289).

[Minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery: surgery 4.0?]. / Minimalinvasive Chirurgie und "robotic surgery": Chirurgie 4.0?

Surgery can only maintain its role in a highly competitive environment if results are continuously improved, accompanied by further reduction of the interventional trauma for patients and with justifiable costs. Significant impulse to achieve this goal was expected from minimally invasive surgery and, in particular, robotic surgery; however, a real breakthrough has not yet been achieved. Accordingly, the new strategic approach of cognitive surgery is required to optimize the provision of surgical treatment. A full scale integration of all modules utilized in the operating room (OR) into a comprehensive network and the development of systems with technical cognition are needed to upgrade the current technical environment passively controlled by the surgeon into an active collaborative support system (surgery 4.0). Only then can the true potential of minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery be exploited.