Operative Delay in Adults with Appendicitis: Time is Money.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that operative delay of up to 24 h is not associated with adverse outcomes among patients undergoing emergent appendectomy. However, the fiscal implication of operative delay is not well described in adults. We sought to examine the effect of delayed appendectomy on clinical outcomes and hospital cost. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing nonelective laparoscopic appendectomy from 2014 to 2018 at both a tertiary care center and an affiliated short-stay hospital. Using a unique data set constructed from merged electronic health record and patient-level hospital financial data, patients with delayed surgery, defined as >12 h from emergency department (ED) arrival to operation, were compared with patients who underwent surgery within 12 h. Patient-specific variables were analyzed for their association with resource utilization, and subsequent multivariable linear regression was performed for total hospital cost. RESULTS: 1372 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy during the study period. 938 patients (68.3%) underwent surgery within 12 h of ED arrival, and 434 patients (31.6%) underwent delayed surgery. Delayed cases had longer length of stay (44.6 ± 42.5 versus 34.5 ± 36.5 h, P < 0.01) and increased total hospital cost ($9326 ± 4691 versus $8440 ± 3404, P < 0.01). The cost difference persisted on multivariable analysis (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between delayed cases and nondelayed cases for operative time, intraoperative findings, including rate of perforation, or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although safe, delayed appendectomy is associated with an increased length of stay and increased total hospital costs compared with appendectomy within 12 h of reaching the ED.

Surgeon Variability Impacts Costs in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: the Volume-Cost Relationship.

BACKGROUND: Physician variation in adherence to best practices contributes to the high costs of health care. Understanding surgeon-specific cost variation in common surgical procedures may inform strategies to improve the value of surgical care. METHODS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomies at a single institution were identified over a 5-year period and linked to an institutional cost database. Multiple linear regression was used to control for patient-, case-, and hospital-specific factors while assessing the impact of surgeon variability on cost. RESULTS: The final dataset contained 1686 patients. Higher surgeon volume (reported in tertiles) was associated with decreased costs ($5354 vs. $6301 vs. $7156, p < 0.01) and OR times (66 min vs. 85 min vs. 95 min, p < 0.01). After controlling for patient-, case-, and hospital-specific factors, non-MIS fellowship training type (p < 0.01) and low surgeon volume (p < 0.01) were associated with increased costs, while time in practice did not contribute to cost variation (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon variability contributes to costs in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Some of this variability is associated with operative volume and fellowship training. Collaboration to limit this cost variability may reduce surgical resource utilization.