Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for primary hepatolithiasis: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatolithiasis confers better clinical benefit and lower hospital costs than open hepatectomy (OH). This study aim to evaluate the clinical and economic value of LH versus OH. METHODS: Patients undergoing OH or LH for primary hepatolithiasis at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between 2015 and 2022 were divided into OH group and LH group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data. Deviation-based cost modelling and weighted average median cost (WAMC) were used to assess and compare the economic value. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients were identified. After exclusions, 403 patients with primary hepatolithiasis underwent anatomical hepatectomy (OH n=143; LH n=260). PSM resulted in 2 groups of 100 patients each. Although LH required a longer median operation duration compared with OH (285.0 versus 240.0 min, respectively, P<0.001), LH patients had fewer wound infections, fewer pre-discharge overall complications (26 versus 43%, respectively, P=0.009), and shorter median postoperative hospital stays (8.0 versus 12.0 days, respectively, P<0.001). No differences were found in blood loss, major complications, stone clearance, and mortality between the two matched groups. However, the median overall hospital cost of LH was significantly higher than that of OH (CNY¥52,196.1 versus 45,349.5, respectively, P=0.007). Although LH patients had shorter median postoperative hospital stays and fewer complications than OH patients, the WAMC was still higher for the LH group than for the OH group with an increase of CNY¥9,755.2 per patient undergoing LH. CONCLUSION: The overall clinical benefit of LH for hepatolithiasis is comparable or even superior to that of OH, but with an economic disadvantage. There is a need to effectively reduce the hospital costs of LH and the gap between costs and diagnosis-related group reimbursement to promote its adoption.

From morbidity reduction to cost-effectiveness: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations in minimal invasive liver surgery.

PURPOSE: Minimal-invasive liver surgery (MILS) reduces surgical trauma and is associated with fewer postoperative complications. To amplify these benefits, perioperative multimodal concepts like Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS), can play a crucial role. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for MILS in an ERAS program, considering the necessary additional workforce and associated expenses. METHODS: A prospective observational study comparing surgical approach in patients within an ERAS program compared to standard care from 2018-2022 at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Cost data were provided by the medical controlling office. ERAS items were applied according to the ERAS society recommendations. RESULTS: 537 patients underwent liver surgery (46% laparoscopic, 26% robotic assisted, 28% open surgery) and 487 were managed by the ERAS protocol. Implementation of ERAS reduced overall postoperative complications in the MILS group (18% vs. 32%, p = 0.048). Complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade II incurred the highest costs (€ 31,093) compared to minor (€ 17,510) and no complications (€13,893; p < 0.001). In the event of major complications, profit margins were reduced by a median of € 6,640. CONCLUSIONS: Embracing the ERAS society recommendations in liver surgery leads to a significant reduction of complications. This outcome justifies the higher cost associated with a well-structured ERAS protocol, as it effectively offsets the expenses of complications.

LAPAROSCOPIC AND LAPAROTOMY BARIATRIC SURGERY IN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL: ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS AND COMPLICATIONS?

BACKGROUND: Despite its increasing popularity, laparoscopy is not the option for bariatric surgeries performed in the Brazilian public health system. AIMS: To compare laparotomy and laparoscopic access in bariatric surgery, considering aspects such as morbidity, mortality, costs, and length of stay. METHODS: The study included 80 patients who were randomly assigned to perform a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. They were equally divided in two groups, laparoscopic and laparotomy. The results obtained in the postoperative period were evaluated and compared according to the Ministry of Health protocol, and later, in their outpatient returns. RESULTS: The surgical time was similar in both groups (p=0.240). The costs of laparoscopic surgery proved to be higher, mainly due to staplers and staples. The patients included in the laparotomy group presented higher rates of severe complications, such as incisional hernia (p<0.001). Costs related to social security and management of postoperative complications were higher in the open surgery group (R$ 1,876.00 vs R$ 34,268.91). CONCLUSIONS: The costs related to social security and treatment of complications were substantially lower in laparoscopic access when compared to laparotomy. However, considering the operative procedure itself, the laparotomy remained cheaper. Finally, the length of stay, the rate of complications, and return to labor had more favorable results in the laparoscopic route.

Clinical outcomes and cost comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients over 80 years.

PURPOSE: The growth of Singapore's geriatric population, coupled with the rise in colorectal cancer (CRC), has increased the number of colorectal surgeries performed on elderly patients. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus open elective colorectal resections in elderly CRC patients over 80 years. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) identified patients over 80 years undergoing elective colectomy and proctectomy between 2018 and 2021. Patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), 30-day postoperative complications, and mortality rates were analysed. Cost data in Singapore dollars were obtained from the finance database. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to determine cost drivers. The 5-year overall survival (OS) for the entire octogenarian CRC cohort with and without postoperative complications was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 192 octogenarian CRC patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between 2018 and 2021, 114 underwent laparoscopic resection (59.4%), while 78 underwent open surgery (40.6%). The proportion of proctectomy cases was similar between laparoscopic and open groups (24.6% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.949). Baseline characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index, albumin level, and tumour staging, were comparable between both groups. Median operative duration was 52.5 min longer in the laparoscopic group (232.5 vs. 180.0 min, P < 0.001). Both groups had no significant differences in postoperative complications and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. Median LOS was 6 days in the laparoscopic group compared to 9 days in the open group (P < 0.001). The mean total cost was 11.7% lower in the laparoscopic group (S$25,583.44 vs. S$28,970.85, P = 0.012). Proctectomy (P = 0.024), postoperative pneumonia (P < 0.001) and urinary tract infection (P < 0.001), and prolonged LOS > 6 days (P < 0.001) were factors contributing to increased costs in the entire cohort. The 5-year OS of octogenarians with minor or major postoperative complications was significantly lower than those without complications (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection is associated with significantly reduced overall hospitalization costs and decreased LOS compared to open resection among octogenarian CRC patients, with comparable postoperative outcomes and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. The extended operative time and higher consumables costs from laparoscopic resection were mitigated by the decrease in other inpatient hospitalization costs, including ward accommodation, daily treatment fees, investigation costs, and rehabilitation expenditures. Comprehensive perioperative care and optimised surgical approach to mitigate the impact of postoperative complications can improve survival in elderly patients undergoing CRC resection.

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. METHODS: 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. RESULTS: The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. CONCLUSION: RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

A prospective comparison of costs between robotics, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in endometrial cancer among women with Class III obesity or higher.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the immediate operating room (OR), inpatient, and overall costs between three surgical modalities among women with endometrial cancer (EC) and Class III obesity or higher. METHODS: A multicentre prospective observational study examined outcomes of women, with early stage EC, treated surgically. Resource use was collected for OR costs including OR time, equipment, and inpatient costs. Median OR, inpatient, and overall costs across surgical modalities were analyzed using an Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test among patients with BMI ≥ 40. RESULTS: Out of 520 women, 103 had a BMI ≥ 40. Among women with BMI ≥ 40: median OR costs were $4197.02 for laparotomy, $5524.63 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $7225.16 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p < 0.001) and median inpatient costs were $5584.28 for laparotomy, $3042.07 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $1794.51 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the median overall costs: $10 291.50 for laparotomy, $8412.63 for non-robotic assisted laparoscopy, and $9002.48 for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (p = 0.185). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in overall costs between the three surgical modalities in patient with BMI ≥ 40. Given the similar costs, any form of minimally invasive surgery should be promoted in this population.

Nationwide Readmissions Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MISVHR) has been performed for almost 30 years; recently, there has been an accelerated adoption of the robotic platform leading to renewed comparisons to open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). The present study evaluates patterns and outcomes of readmissions for MISVHR and OVHR patients. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was queried for patients undergoing OVHR and MISVHR from 2016 to 2018. Demographic characteristics, complications, and 90-day readmissions were determined. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) vs laparoscopic hernia repair (LVHR). Standard statistical methods and logistic regression were used. RESULTS: Over the 3-year period, there were 25 795 MISVHR and 180 635 OVHR admissions. Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair was associated with a lower rate of 90-day readmission (11.3% vs 17.3%, P < .01), length of stay (LOS) (4.0 vs 7.9 days, P < .01), and hospital charges ($68,240 ± 75 680 vs $87,701 ± 73 165, P < .01), which remained true when elective and non-elective repairs were evaluated independently. Postoperative infection was the most common reason for readmission but was less common in the MISVHR group (8.4% vs 16.8%, P < .01). Robotic ventral hernia repair increased over the 3-year period and was associated with decreased LOS (3.7 vs 4.1 days, P < .01) and comparable readmissions (11.3% vs 11.2%, P = .74) to LVHR, but was nearly $20,000 more expensive. In logistic regression, OVHR, non-elective operation, urban-teaching hospital, increased LOS, comorbidities, and payer type were predictive of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Open ventral hernia repair was associated with increased LOS and increased readmissions compared to MISVHR. Robotic ventral hernia repair had comparable readmissions and decreased LOS to LVHR, but it was more expensive.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic). METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

The impact of operative approach on postoperative outcomes and healthcare utilization after colectomy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate national trends in adoption of different surgical approaches for colectomy and compare clinical outcomes and resource utilization between approaches. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective inpatient left or right colectomy between 2010 and 2019 from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were classified by operative approach: open, minimally invasive: either laparoscopic or robotic. Postoperative outcomes assessed within index hospitalization include operating room time, hospital length of stay, rates of conversion to open surgery, reoperation, and complications. Post-discharge readmission, hospital-based encounters, and costs were collected to 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes between operative approaches adjusted for patient baseline characteristics and clustering within hospitals. RESULTS: Among 206,967 patients, the robotic approach rates increased from 2.1%/1.6% (2010) to 32.6%/26.8% (2019) for left/right colectomy, offset by a decrease in both open and laparoscopic approaches. Median length of stay for both left and right colectomies was significantly longer in open (6 days) and laparoscopic (5 days) compared to robotic surgery (4 days; all P values <.001). Robotic surgery compared to open and laparoscopic was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate, development of ileus, overall complications, and 30-day hospital encounters. Robotic surgery further demonstrated lower mortality, reoperations, postoperative bleeding, and readmission rates for left and right colectomies than open. Robotic surgery had significantly longer operating room times and higher costs than either open or laparoscopic. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in colon surgery, with outcomes equivalent and in some domains superior to laparoscopic.

Value Analysis of Methods of Inguinal Hernia Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Value is defined as health outcomes important to patients relative to cost of achieving those outcomes: Value = Quality/Cost. For inguinal hernia repair, Level 1 evidence shows no differences in long-term functional status or recurrence rates when comparing surgical approaches. Differences in value reside within differences in cost. The aim of this study is to compare the value of different surgical approaches to inguinal hernia repair: Open (Open-IH), Laparoscopic (Lap-IH), and Robotic (R-TAPP). METHODS: Variable and fixed hospital costs were compared among consecutive Open-IH, Lap-IH, and R-TAPP repairs (100 each) performed in a university hospital. Variable costs (VC) including direct materials, labor, and variable overhead ($/min operating room [OR] time) were evaluated using Value Driven Outcomes, an internal activity-based costing methodology. Variable and fixed costs were allocated using full absorption costing to evaluate the impact of surgical approach on value. As cost data is proprietary, differences in cost were normalized to Open-IH cost. RESULTS: Compared to Open-IH, VC for Lap-IH were 1.02X higher (including a 0.81X reduction in cost for operating room [OR] time). For R-TAPP, VC were 2.11X higher (including 1.36X increased costs for OR time). With allocation of fixed cost, a Lap-IH was 1.03X more costly, whereas R-TAPP was 3.18X more costly than Open-IH. Using equivalent recurrence as the quality metric in the value equation, Lap-IH decreases value by 3% and R-TAPP by 69% compared to Open-IH. CONCLUSIONS: Use of higher cost technology to repair inguinal hernias reduces value. Incremental health benefits must be realized to justify increased costs. We expect payors and patients will incorporate value into payment decisions.

Comparison of Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) against Laparoscopic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy (LASH) for menorrhagia treatment: An economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: This economic evaluation and literature review was conducted with the primary aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) with NICE's gold-standard treatment of Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) for menorrhagia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from an NHS perspective, using data from two European studies to compare the treatments. Individual costs and benefits were assessed within one year of having the intervention. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated, followed by sensitivity analysis. Expected Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYS) and costs to the NHS were calculated alongside health net benefits (HNB) and monetary net benefits (MNB). RESULTS: A QALY gain of 0.069 was seen in use of LNG-IUS compared to LASH. This yielded a MNB between -£44.99 and -£734.99, alongside a HNB between -0.0705 QALYs and -0.106 QALYS. Using a £20,000-£30,000/QALY limit outlined by NICE,this showed the LNG-IUS to be more cost-effective than LASH, with LASH exceeding the upper bound of the £30,000/QALY limit. Sensitivity analysis lowered the ICER below the given threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER demonstrates it would not be cost-effective to replace the current gold-standard LNG-IUS with LASH, when treating menorrhagia in the UK. The ICER's proximity to the threshold and its high sensitivity alludes to the necessity for further research to generate a more reliable cost-effectiveness estimate. However, LASH could be considered as a first line treatment option in women with no desire to have children.

Post robotic investment: Cost consequences and impact on length of stay for obese women with endometrial cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to investigate whether robotic-assisted surgery is associated with lower incremental resource use among obese patients relative to non-obese patients after a Danish nationwide adoption of robotic-assisted surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer. This is a population-based cohort study based on registers and clinical data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All women who underwent surgery (robotic, laparoscopic and laparotomy) from 2008 to 2015 were included and divided according to body mass index (<30 and ≥30). Robotic-assisted surgery was gradually introduced in Denmark (2008-2013). We compared resource use post-surgery in obese vs non-obese women who underwent surgery before and after a nationwide adoption of robotic-assisted surgery. The key exposure variable was exposure to robotic-assisted surgery. Clinical and sociodemographic data were linked with national register data to determine costs and bed days 12 months before and after surgery applying difference-in-difference analyses. RESULTS: In total, 3934 women were included. The adoption of robotic-assisted surgery did not demonstrate statistically significant implications for total costs among obese women (€3,417; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€854 to €7,688, p = 0.117). Further, for obese women, a statistically significant reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization was demonstrated (-1.9 bed days; 95% CI -3.6 to -0.2, p = 0.025). However, for non-obese women, the adoption of robotic-assisted surgery was associated with statistically significant total costs increments of €9,333 (95% CI €3,729-€1,4936, p = 0.001) and no reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization was observed (+0.9 bed days; 95% CI -0.6 to 2.3, p = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: The national investment in robotic-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer seems to have more modest cost implications post-surgery for obese women. This may be partly driven by a significant reduction in bed days related to the index hospitalization among obese women, as well as reductions in subsequent hospitalizations.

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma presents less respiratory complications compared with open procedure: A propensity score analysis in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Resection is still the most efficacious treatment to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), among which laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have controversial effects against conventional open procedure (OLR). With a predictable aging tendency of population worldwide, conventional surgical procedures need to be modified to better accommodate elderly patients. Here, we designed a retrospective study based on propensity score analysis, aiming to compare the efficacy of OLR and LLR in patients over 65 years. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with an age over 65 who underwent liver resection between January 2015 and September 2018. Patients were divided into the LLR group and OLR group. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: Among 240 enrolled patients, 142 were matched with comparable baseline (71 each group). In the matched cohort, LLR group presented with shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 7 vs 6 days, p = 0.003) and fewer respiratory complications (19.7% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.049), especially pleural effusion (15.5% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.020). Meanwhile, LLR had comparable overall hospital cost (6142 vs. 6243 USD, p = 0.977) compared with OLR. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) did not differ in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that laparoscopic liver resection for HCC in the older age groups is associated with shorter postoperative hospital stay and comparable hospital cost compared with open procedure, which could be attributable to less respiratory complications. We recommend that laparoscopy be taken as a priority option for elderly patients with resectable HCC.

State-Level Examination of Clinical Outcomes and Costs for Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach to Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Published studies evaluating the effect of robotic assistance on clinical outcomes and costs of care in diaphragmatic hernia repair (DHR) have been limited. STUDY DESIGN: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for Florida were queried to identify patients undergoing transabdominal DHR between 2011 and 2018 and associated inpatient and outpatient encounters within 12 months after the index operation. Patients undergoing robotic DHR were 1:1:1 propensity score-matched for age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidity score, case priority, payer, and facility volume with patients undergoing open and laparoscopic DHR. RESULTS: There were 5,962 patients (67.3%) who underwent laparoscopic DHR, 1,520 (17.2%) who underwent open DHR, and 1,376 (15.5%) who underwent robotic DHR. On comparison of matched cohorts, median index length of stay (3 days; interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 5 days vs 2 days; IQR 1 to 4 days; p < 0.001) and index hospitalization costs ($17,236; IQR $13,231 to $22,183 vs $12,087; IQR $8,881 to $17,439; p < 0.001) for robotic DHR were greater than for laparoscopic DHR. Median length of stay for open DHR (6 days; IQR 4 to 10 days) was longer than that for both laparoscopic and robotic DHR. Median index hospitalization costs for open DHR ($16,470; IQR $11,152 to $23,768) were greater than those for laparoscopic DHR, but less than those for robotic DHR. There were no significant differences between cohorts in the overall rate of post-index care. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic DHR is the most cost-effective approach to DHR. Robotic assistance provides clinical outcomes comparable with laparoscopic DHR, but is associated with increased index cost.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS: Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included. RESULTS: A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Single site versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: some pain for no gain?

INTRODUCTION: The optimal laparoscopic appendectomy approach is not clear, comparing single site laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) to conventional 3-port appendectomy (CLA). We investigated outcomes in pediatric patients comparing SILA to CLA: length of operation, length of stay, time to resumption of regular diet, follow up, rehospitalization, and cost. METHODS: Data was collected from children 1 to 18 years with appendectomy at Loma Linda University from 2018 to 2020, operated by two surgeons. Analysis utilized two-sample T, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Of 173 patients, 77 underwent SILA and 96 had CLA. There was no gender, age, or race difference between groups. Mean WBC was 17.5 × 103/mL in SILA group, compared to 15.3 × 103/mL in CLA group (P = 0.004). Operative time was 47.0 SILA compared to 49.5 minutes CLA (P = 0.269). Of SILA cases, 55.8% were simple appendicitis, while 53.3% of the CLA cases were simple (P = 0.857). Regular diet was resumed after 1.7 days in the SILA group, 1.1 days in CLA (P = 0.018). Length of stay was 2.9 days for SILA, 2.4 days for CLA (P = 0.144). Seven children required hospital readmission, 5 SILA and 2 CLA (P = 0.244). Five of the children who returned had intra-abdominal abscesses, of whom 4 had SILA. There was no difference in cost. CONCLUSIONS: The operative techniques had similar outcomes and operative times. There was a trend toward more intra-abdominal abscesses in the SILA group. Further study and longer follow up is needed to determine if there is an advantage to one laparoscopic approach over another.

Healthcare Resource Utilization in Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Three-Year Cost Evaluation of Truven Health Marketscan Research Databases.

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most commonly performed elective operation in the United States, with over 800,000 cases annually. While clinical outcomes comparing laparoscopic versus open techniques have been well documented, there is little data comparing costs associated with these techniques. This study evaluates the cost of healthcare resources during the 90-d postoperative period following inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. Adult patients with an ICD-9 or CPT code for inguinal hernia repair from 2012 to 2014 were included. Patients with continuous enrollment for 6 mo prior to surgery and 6 mo after surgery were analyzed. Related healthcare service costs (readmission and/or ER visit and/or outpatient visit) were calculated by clinical classification software and generalized linear modeling was used to compare healthcare utilization between groups. RESULTS: 124,582 cases were identified (open = 84,535; lap = 40,047). Index surgery cost was 41% higher in laparoscopic cases. The cost for readmission was close to $25,000 and similar between both groups, but the laparoscopic group were 12% less likely to be readmitted for surgical complications within 90-d when compared to the open group. Cost of bilateral laparoscopic repair is less than that of serial unilateral open repairs. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair carries a higher index surgery cost than open repair. However, open repair has an increased rate of readmission. To maximize value, efforts should be directed at minimizing readmissions and improving identification of bilateral hernias at the time of initial presentation.

Same-day discharge after laparoscopic appendectomy for non-perforated appendicitis is safe and cost effective.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To compare the outcomes and hospital charges of patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for non-perforated appendicitis and were discharged home either shortly after the operation after being admitted for overnight observation. METHODS: Postoperative (30-day) emergency department (ED) visits, hospital readmissions, and reoperations were compared between patients who were discharged shortly after surgery (same-day discharge [SDD] group) and patients who were discharged after spending one night in the hospital (overnight observation group). STUDY PERIOD: July/2015 to June/2019. Patients with perforated appendicitis and/or who spent > 1 night in the hospital were excluded from the study. RESULTS: We did 1957 laparoscopic appendectomies within the 4-year study period. After excluding all non-eligible cases, 930 patients were included in the overnight observation group, and 511 in the SDD group. Mean age and mean operative time were similar in both groups: 11.5 (SD 3.6)/11.8 (SD 3.5) years, and 35 (SD 13)/33 (SD 12) minutes, respectively. There were 24 (2.6%) ED visits within the overnight observation group. Sixteen patients (1.7%) were discharged from the ED, and 8 (0.9%) required a re-admission. There were 11 (2.1%; P = 0.61) ED visits within the SDD group. Six patients (1.1%; P = 0.41) were discharged from the ED, and 5 (1%; P = 0.82) required a readmission. Six of the 11 ED visits within the SDD group occurred on the 5th postoperative day or later, whereas five (1%) occurred within the first 3 days post appendectomy. These five patients would have likely benefited from an overnight admission and were erroneously discharged on the same day of the appendectomy. There were no reoperations in the overnight observation group, but there were 3 reoperations in the SDD group (0.6%, P = 0.01). The reasons for the reoperations (two bowel obstructions and one bowel perforation) were in no way related to the time of the original discharge. The mean hospital charges per patient in the SDD group and the overnight observation group were significantly different: $32,450 and $35,420, respectively (> 9% margin, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Healthy children who undergo laparoscopic appendectomy for non-perforated appendicitis can be discharged home during the same day of the operation after a short period of observation. This approach is safe and does not result in more postoperative ED visits or hospital readmissions. In addition, there is a significant financial benefit when patients are discharged early. LEVEL-OF-EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective comparative treatment study.