Combined endo-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) for benign colon polyps: a single institution cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic removal of benign colon polyps is not always possible, even with advanced endoscopic techniques. Segmental colectomy has been the traditional therapy but is associated with an increased risk of complications and may be unnecessary since fewer than 20% of these polyps harbor malignancy. Combined endo-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) has emerged as an alternative method to address these polyps. While feasibility, safety, and improved short-term patient outcomes have been demonstrated, there has never been an evaluation of cost comparing these two approaches within a single institution.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, we compared short-term outcomes and costs of 11 patients who underwent CELS for right colon polyps with 11 patients who underwent a laparoscopic right colectomy between April 2014 and November 2017. The cost analysis covered the perioperative period from operating room to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 11 patients underwent an attempted CELS procedure for right colon polyps with a success rate of 90% (10/11). The median length of stay (LOS) for CELS patients was 1 day. LOS for patients who underwent a laparoscopic right colectomy at TMC was 3.82 days. The median OR time for CELS was 166.73 (± 57.88) min, compared to 204.73 (± 51.49) min for a laparoscopic right colectomy. The calculated total cost for a CELS patient was $5523.29, compared to $12,626.33 for a laparoscopic right colectomy, for a cost-savings of $7103.04 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

CELS procedures are associated with good short-term outcomes and are performed at a lower cost compared to traditional laparoscopic colectomy, with the most significant cost saver being shorter hospital LOS. This is the first study to directly compare the cost of CELS to traditional laparoscopic colectomy in the surgical management of benign colon polyps within a single institution.

High-Risk Colorectal Surgery: What Are the Outcomes for Geriatric Patients?

The population is aging and more geriatric patients are undergoing surgery. The national burden and age-specific outcomes of previously defined high-risk colorectal procedures (HRCP) remain unknown. Using the 2014 National Inpatient Sample, patients were stratified into nongeriatric (NG, <65 years), younger geriatric (YG, 65-79 years), and older geriatric (OG, ≥80 years) cohorts. Cases were grouped into nonelective admissions (NA) and elective admissions (EA). Nationally representative outcomes were compared across age group and admission type. Of 215,425 patients undergoing HRCP, 47.3 per cent were ≥65 years. During NA and EA, inpatient mortality, discharge to nursing facility, and median postoperative length of stay increased with each increasing age category (P < 0.001). Outcomes during NA were worse than EA in all age groups (P < 0.001). For example, rates of discharge to nursing facility were 13.4 per cent NG, 39.4 per cent YG, and 64.7 per cent OG during; NA and 3.1 per cent NG, 13.3 per cent YG, and 34 per cent OG during EA. During NA and EA, cost was equal in YG and OG but greater than in NG. Outcomes after HRCP are worse for older patients and for nonelective cases. This information can inform preoperative counseling and targeted quality improvement projects. Further work is needed to understand geriatric-specific risk factors and outcomes to provide high-quality patient-centered care.

Impact of Visceral Obesity and Sarcopenia on Short-Term Outcomes After Colorectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

With the increased prevalence of obesity and sarcopenia, those patients with both visceral obesity and sarcopenia were at higher risk of adverse outcomes.

AIM

The aim of this study was to ascertain the combined impact of visceral obesity and sarcopenia on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study from July 2014 to February 2017. Patients' demographic, clinical characteristics, physical performance, and postoperative short-term outcomes were collected. Patients were classified into four groups according to the presence of sarcopenia or visceral obesity. Clinical variables were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluating the risk factors for postoperative complications were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 376 patients were included; 50.8 and 24.5% of the patients were identified as having "visceral obesity" and "sarcopenia," respectively. Patients with sarcopenia and visceral obesity had the highest incidence of total, surgical, and medical complications. Patients with sarcopenia or/and visceral obesity all had longer hospital stays and higher hospitalization costs. Age ≥ 65 years, visceral obesity, and sarcopenia were independent risk factors for total complications. Rectal cancer and visceral obesity were independent risk factors for surgical complications. Age ≥ 65 years and sarcopenia were independent risk factors for medical complications. Laparoscopy-assisted operation was a protective factor for total and medical complications.

CONCLUSION

Patients with both visceral obesity and sarcopenia had a higher complication rate after colorectal cancer surgery. Age ≥ 65 years, visceral obesity, and sarcopenia were independent risk factors for total complications. Laparoscopy-assisted operation was a protective factor.

Early Surgical Intervention for Acute Ulcerative Colitis Is Associated with Improved Postoperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Timing of surgical intervention for acute ulcerative colitis has not been fully examined during the modern immunotherapy era. Although early surgical intervention is recommended, historical consensus for "early" ranges widely. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes according to timing of urgent surgery for acute ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

All non-elective total colectomies in ulcerative colitis patients were identified in the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2014. Procedures, comorbidities, diagnoses, and in-hospital outcomes were collected using International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision codes. An operation was defined as early if within 24 hours of admission. Results were compared between the early versus delayed surgery groups.

RESULTS

We found 69,936 patients that were admitted with ulcerative colitis, and 2650 patients that underwent non-elective total colectomy (3.8%). Early intervention was performed in 20.4% of patients who went to surgery. More early operations were performed laparoscopically (28.1% versus 23.3%, p = 0.021) and on more comorbid patients (Charlson Index, p = 0.008). Median total hospitalization costs were $20,948 with an early operation versus $33,666 with a delayed operation (p < 0.001). Delayed operation was an independent risk for a complication (OR = 1.46, p = 0.001). Increased hospitalization costs in the delayed surgery group were statistically significantly higher with a reported complication (OR = 3.00, p < 0.001) and lengths of stay (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Delayed operations for acute ulcerative colitis are associated with increased postoperative complications, increased lengths of stay, and increased hospital costs. Further prospective studies could demonstrate that this association leads to improved outcomes with immediate surgical intervention for medically refractory ulcerative colitis.

Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to be safe, oncologically comparable, and clinically beneficial over open colectomy for colon cancer, but utilization remains low. Objectives To evaluate the cost of laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective claims data analysis using the 2012 and 2013 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database. The denominator population consisted of individuals who had commercial insurance coverage in all months of 2012 and >1 month in 2013 and pharmacy coverage throughout eligibility. The study population included individuals aged 18-64 years who were identified with colon cancer in 2013 and underwent an elective inpatient open colectomy or laparoscopic colectomy between January and November 2013. The cost and re-admission rate of open vs laparoscopic colectomy were compared after risk, adjusting for comorbidities, demographics, and geographic region.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1299 elective inpatient colon cancer colectomies were performed (open, n = 558; laparoscopic, n = 741). After risk adjustment, the laparoscopic vs open group was shown to have lower re-admission rates (6.61 and 10.93 per 100 cases, respectively, p = .0165), lower average re-admission costs ($1676 and $3151, respectively, p = .0309), and lower 30-day post-discharge healthcare utilization costs ($4842 and $7121, respectively, p = .0047). Average allowed cost for the combined inpatient and 30-day post-discharge period was lower for laparoscopic vs open colectomy cases ($36,395 and $44,226, respectively, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost of laparoscopic colectomy was found to be statistically significantly less than that of open colectomy in patients undergoing elective surgery for colon cancer.

Can postoperative process of care utilization or complication rates explain the volume-cost relationship for cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND

Past studies identify an association between provider volume and outcomes, but less is known about the volume-cost relationship for cancer surgery. We analyze the volume-cost relationship for 6 cancer operations and explore whether it is influenced by the occurrence of complications and/or utilization of processes of care.

METHODS

Medicare hospital and inpatient claims for the years 2005 through 2009 were analyzed for 6 cancer resections: colectomy, rectal resection, pulmonary lobectomy, pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, and pancreatic resection. Regressions were first estimated to quantify the association of provider volume with costs, excluding measures of complications and processes of care as explanatory variables. Next, these variables were added to the regressions to test whether they weakened any previously observed volume-cost relationship.

RESULTS

Higher hospital volume is associated with lower patient costs for esophagectomy but not for other operations. Higher surgeon volume reduces costs for most procedures, but this result weakens when processes of care are added to the regressions. Processes of care that are frequently implemented in response to adverse events are associated with 14% to 34% higher costs. Utilization of these processes is more prevalent among low-volume versus high-volume surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Processes of care implemented when complications occur explain much of the surgeon volume-cost relationship. Given that surgeon volume is readily observed, better outcomes and lower costs may be achieved by referring patients to high-volume surgeons. Increasing patient access to surgeons with lower rates of complications may be the most effective strategy for avoiding costly processes of care, controlling expenditure growth.

Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on hospital costs for colon cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopy is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with colon cancer. The study objective is to estimate the difference in hospital costs between laparoscopic and open colon cancer surgery.

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

All acute hospitals of the National Health System in England.

POPULATION

A total of 55 358 patients aged 30 and over with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer admitted for planned (elective) open or laparoscopic major resection between April 2006 and March 2013.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Inpatient hospital costs during index admission and after 30 and 90 days following the index admission.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching was used to create comparable exposed and control groups. The hospital cost of an index admission was estimated to be £1933 (95% CI 1834 to 2027; p<0.01) lower among patients who underwent laparoscopic resection. After including the first unplanned readmission following index admission, laparoscopy was £2107 (95% CI 2000 to 2215; p<0.01) less expensive at 30 days and £2202 (95% CI 2092 to 2316; p<0.01) less expensive at 90 days. The difference in cost was explained by shorter hospital stay and lower readmission rates in patients undergoing minimal access surgery. The use of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery increased 4-fold between 2006 and 2012 resulting in a total cost saving in excess of £29.3 million for the National Health Service (NHS).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is associated with lower hospital costs than open surgery in elective patients with colon cancer suitable for both interventions.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy versus open colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy is increasingly being adopted for the treatment of colon cancer; however, the long-term effectiveness of this approach in a real-world clinical setting has yet to be verified. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and costs associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy from the perspective of the National Health Insurance (NHI) system in Taiwan.

METHODS

A nationwide population-based colon cancer cohort was observed by linking the Taiwan Cancer Registry, claims data from NHI system, and the National Death Registry. Adult patients with Stage I to Stage III colon cancer who underwent primary cancer resection using either laparoscopy or open colectomy between 2009 and 2011 were included. A propensity score-matched cohort (1745 pairs) was applied to examine three clinical endpoints: overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival within 2 years after the operation. To comply with the perspective as well as the analytic horizon of the study, we limited the research to NHI claims from the study population for the corresponding time period. The health outcomes and net monetary benefits were verified by multivariate mixed-effect models.

RESULTS

This analysis revealed that laparoscopy resulted in longer overall survival (adjusted difference 16.8 days, 95 % CI 7.3-26.2), recurrence-free survival (16.8 days, 5.0-28.6) and disease-free survival (26.4 days, 7.4-45.4), compared to open colectomy at 2 years post-op. Laparoscopy also led to a significantly shorter length of stay (3.2 days, 2.4-3.9) and lower index hospitalization costs (US$ 455, 181-729) than open colectomy; however, no differences in costs were observed over the long term. Overall, laparoscopy was more cost-effective than open colectomy under various willingness-to-pay thresholds in the setting of the Taiwan NHI.

CONCLUSIONS

The continued adoption of laparoscopy in primary curable colon cancer resection is expected to reduce health care costs over the short term while providing considerable health benefits over the long term.

Single-incision robotic colectomy: are costs prohibitive?

BACKGROUND

The feasibility, safety, and costs of single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are not known.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted, comparing the initial 29 consecutive SIRC procedures performed to 36 multiport laparoscopic colectomies (MLC).

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly on age, body mass index, gender, ASA classification, smoking status, steroid usage or rate of diabetes. Procedure time, conversion rate, infectious complications and length of stay did not differ significantly. The ratio of observed:expected direct hospital costs statistically favoured MLC, although there was no statistical difference between groups for contribution margin, or for observed and expected direct hospital costs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate safety and technical feasibility for SIRC in selected patients with short-term outcomes and hospital costs comparable to MLC. Contribution margin remained positive and expected costs exceeded observed for SIRC. Increased costs for SIRC are a concern. The comparable but relatively high mortality in both groups may represent an institutional approach to colectomy where significant comorbidity is not a contraindication to minimally invasive surgery. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Using Publicly Available Data to Construct a Transparent Measure of Health Care Value: A Method and Initial Results

POLICY POINTS

Using publicly available Hospital Compare and Medicare data, we found a substantial range of hospital-level performance on quality, expenditure, and value measures for 4 common reasons for admission. Hospitals' ability to consistently deliver high-quality, low-cost care varied across the different reasons for admission. With the exception of coronary artery bypass grafting, hospitals that provided the highest-value care had more beds and a larger average daily census than those providing the lowest-value care. Transparent data like those we present can empower patients to compare hospital performance, make better-informed treatment decisions, and decide where to obtain care for particular health care problems.

CONTEXT

In the United States, the transition from volume to value dominates discussions of health care reform. While shared decision making might help patients determine whether to get care, transparency in procedure- and hospital-specific value measures would help them determine where to get care.

METHODS

Using Hospital Compare and Medicare expenditure data, we constructed a hospital-level measure of value from a numerator composed of quality-of-care measures (satisfaction, use of timely and effective care, and avoidance of harms) and a denominator composed of risk-adjusted 30-day episode-of-care expenditures for acute myocardial infarction (1,900 hospitals), coronary artery bypass grafting (884 hospitals), colectomy (1,252 hospitals), and hip replacement surgery (1,243 hospitals).

FINDINGS

We found substantial variation in aggregate measures of quality, cost, and value at the hospital level. Value calculation provided additional richness when compared to assessment based on quality or cost alone: about 50% of hospitals in an extreme quality- (and about 65% more in an extreme cost-) quintile were in the same extreme value quintile. With the exception of coronary artery bypass grafting, higher-value hospitals were larger and had a higher average daily census than lower-value hospitals, but were no more likely to be accredited by the Joint Commission or to have a residency program accredited by the American Council of Graduate Medical Education.

CONCLUSIONS

While future efforts to compose value measures will certainly be modified and expanded to examine other reasons for admission, the construct that we present could allow patients to transparently compare procedure- and hospital-specific quality, spending, and value and empower them to decide where to obtain care.

Totally robotic vs 3D laparoscopic colectomy: A single centers preliminary experience

AIM: To compare robotic and three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic colectomy based on the literature and our preliminary experience.

METHODS: This retrospective observational study compared operative measures and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic 3D and robotic colectomy for cancer. From September 2013 to September 2014, 24 robotic colectomies and 23 3D laparoscopic colectomy were performed at our Department. Data were analyzed and reported both by approach and by colectomy side. Robotic left colectomy (RL) vs laparoscopic 3D left colectomy (LL 3D) and Robotic right colectomy (RR) vs laparoscopic 3D (LR 3D). Rectal cancer procedures were not included.

RESULTS: There were 18 RR and 11 LR 3D, 6 RL and 12 LL 3D. As regards LR 3D, extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) was performed in 7 patients and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in 4; the RR group included 14 IA and 4 EA. There was no mortality. Median operative time was higher for the robotic group while conversion rate (12.5% vs 13%) and lymph nodes removed (14 vs 13) were similar for both. First flatus time was 1 d for RR and 2 d the other patient groups. Oral intake was resumed in 1 d by LR and in 2 d by the other patients (P = 0.012). Overall cost was €4950 and €1950 for RL and LL 3D, and €4450 and €1450 for RR and LR 3D, respectively.

CONCLUSION: There were no differences between RR and LR 3D, except that IA was easier with RR, and probably contributed with the learning curve to the longer operative time recorded. Both techniques offer similar advantages for the patient with significantly different costs. In left colectomies robotic colectomy provided better outcomes, especially in resections approaching the rectum.

Impact of processes of care aimed at complication reduction on the cost of complex cancer surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Health care providers add multiple processes to the care of complex cancer patients, believing they prevent and/or ameliorate complications. However, the relationship between these processes, complication remediation, and expenditures is unknown.

METHODS

Data for patients with cancer diagnoses undergoing colectomy, rectal resection, pulmonary lobectomy, pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, and pancreatic resection were obtained from hospital and inpatient physician Medicare claims for the years 2005-2009. Risk-adjusted regression analyses measured the association between hospitalization costs and processes presumed to prevent and/or remedy complications common to high-risk procedures.

RESULTS

After controlling for comorbidities, analysis identified associations between increased costs and use of multiple processes, including arterial lines (4-12% higher; P < 0.001) and pulmonary artery catheters (23-33% higher; P < 0.001). Epidural analgesia was not associated with higher costs. Consultations were associated with 24-44% (P < 0.001) higher costs, and total parenteral nutrition was associated with 13-31% higher costs (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Many frequently utilized processes and services presumed to avoid and/or ameliorate complications are associated with increased surgical oncology costs. This suggests that the patient-centered value of each process should be measured on a procedure-specific basis. Likewise, further attention should be focused on defining the efficacy of each of these costly, but frequently unproven, additions to perioperative care.

Reliability of hospital cost profiles in inpatient surgery

BACKGROUND

With increased policy emphasis on shifting risk from payers to providers through mechanisms such as bundled payments and accountable care organizations, hospitals are increasingly in need of metrics to understand their costs relative to peers. However, it is unclear whether Medicare payments for surgery can reliably compare hospital costs.

METHODS

We used national Medicare data to assess patients undergoing colectomy, pancreatectomy, and open incisional hernia repair from 2009 to 2010 (n = 339,882 patients). We first calculated risk-adjusted hospital total episode payments for each procedure. We then used hierarchical modeling techniques to estimate the reliability of total episode payments for each procedure and explored the impact of hospital caseload on payment reliability. Finally, we quantified the number of hospitals meeting published reliability benchmarks.

RESULTS

Mean risk-adjusted total episode payments ranged from $13,262 (standard deviation [SD] $14,523) for incisional hernia repair to $25,055 (SD $22,549) for pancreatectomy. The reliability of hospital episode payments varied widely across procedures and depended on sample size. For example, mean episode payment reliability for colectomy (mean caseload, 157) was 0.80 (SD 0.18), whereas for pancreatectomy (mean caseload, 13) the mean reliability was 0.45 (SD 0.27). Many hospitals met published reliability benchmarks for each procedure. For example, 90% of hospitals met reliability benchmarks for colectomy, 40% for pancreatectomy, and 66% for incisional hernia repair.

CONCLUSION

Episode payments for inpatient surgery are a reliable measure of hospital costs for commonly performed procedures, but are less reliable for lower volume operations. These findings suggest that hospital cost profiles based on Medicare claims data may be used to benchmark efficiency, especially for more common procedures.

Incremental Cost of Emergency Versus Elective Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To determine hospital costs and the adjusted risk of death associated with emergent versus elective surgery.

BACKGROUND

Emergency surgery has a higher cost and worse outcomes compared with elective surgery. However, no national estimates of the excess burden of emergency surgery exist.

METHODS

Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2001 to 2010 were analyzed. Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary artery bypass graft, or colon resection for neoplasm were included. Using generalized linear models with propensity scores, cost differences for emergent versus elective admission were calculated for each procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate the adjusted odds of mortality comparing elective and emergent cases. Discharge-level weights were applied to analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 621,925 patients, representing a weighted population of 3,057,443, were included. The adjusted mean cost difference for emergent versus elective care was $8741.22 (30% increase) for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, $5309.78 (17% increase) for coronary artery bypass graft, and $7813.53 (53% increase) for colon resection. If 10% of the weighted estimates of emergency procedures had been performed electively, the cost benefit would have been nearly $1 billion, at $996,169,160 (95% confidence interval [CI], $985,505,565-$1,006,834,104). Elective surgery patients had significantly lower adjusted odds of mortality for all procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Even a modest reduction in the proportion of emergent procedures for 3 conditions is estimated to save nearly $1 billion over 10 years. Preventing emergency surgery through improved care coordination and screening offers a tremendous opportunity to save lives and decrease costs.

Collaboration Between Surgeons and Medical Oncologists and Outcomes for Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer

PURPOSE

Collaboration between specialists is essential for achieving high-value care in patients with complex cancer needs. We explore how collaboration between oncologists and surgeons affects mortality and cost for patients requiring multispecialty cancer care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with stage III colon cancer from SEER-Medicare diagnosed between 2000 and 2009. Patients were assigned to a primary treating surgeon and oncologist. Collaboration between surgeon and oncologist was measured as the number of patients shared between them; this has been shown to reflect advice seeking and referral relationships between physicians. Outcomes included hazards for all-cause mortality, subhazards for colon cancer-specific mortality, and cost of care at 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 9,329 patients received care from 3,623 different surgeons and 2,319 medical oncologists, representing 6,827 unique surgeon-medical oncologist pairs. As the number of patients shared between specialists increased from to one to five (25th to 75th percentile), patients experienced an approximately 20% improved survival benefit from all-cause and colon cancer-specific mortalities. Specifically, for each additional patient shared between oncologist and surgeon, all-cause mortality improved by 5% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.92 to 0.97), and colon cancer-specific mortality improved by 5% (subhazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97). There was no association with cost.

CONCLUSION

Specialist collaboration is associated with lower mortality without increased cost among patients with stage III colon cancer. Facilitating formal and informal collaboration between specialists may be an important strategy for improving the care of patients with complex cancers.

Impact of postsurgical opioid use and ileus on economic outcomes in gastrointestinal surgeries

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence and economic impact of postoperative ileus (POI) following laparotomy (open) and laparoscopic procedures for colectomies and cholecystectomies in patients receiving postoperative pain management with opioids.

METHODS

Using the Premier research database, we retrospectively identified adult inpatients discharged between 2008 and 2010 receiving postsurgical opioids following laparotomy and laparoscopic colectomy and cholecystectomy. POI was identified through ICD-9 diagnosis codes and postsurgical morphine equivalent dose (MED) determined.

RESULTS

A total of 138,068 patients met criteria, and 10.3% had an ileus. Ileus occurred more frequently in colectomy than cholecystectomy and more often when performed by laparotomy. Ileus patients receiving opioids had an increased length of stay (LOS) ranging from 4.8 to 5.7 days, total cost from $9945 to $13,055 and 30 day all-cause readmission rate of 2.3 to 5.3% higher compared to patients without ileus. Patients with ileus received significantly greater MED than those without (median: 285 vs. 95 mg, p < 0.0001) and were twice as likely to have POI. MED above the median in ileus patients was associated with an increase in LOS (3.8 to 7.1 days), total cost ($8458 to $19,562), and readmission in laparoscopic surgeries (4.8 to 5.2%). Readmission rates were similar in ileus patients undergoing open procedures regardless of MED.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of opioids in patients who develop ileus following abdominal surgeries is associated with prolonged hospitalization, greater costs, and increased readmissions. Furthermore, higher doses of opioids are associated with higher incidence of POI. Limitations are related to the retrospective design and the use of administrative data (including reliance on ICD-9 coding). Yet POI may not be coded and therefore underestimated in our study. Assessment of pre-existing disease and preoperative pain management was not assessed. Despite these limitations, strategies to reduce opioid consumption may improve healthcare outcomes and reduce the associated economic impact.

[SURGICAL TREATMENT OUTCOME IN PATIENTS WITH COLORECTAL CANCER AND CONCOMITANT LIVER METASTASES]

Colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis (sm-CRC) is extremely unfavorable prognostic factor. Surgery remains is most effective method, able to extend the life of these patients. The results of treatment of 126 patients with sm-CRC were analyzed, whom performed simultaneous (group I) or staged (group II) surgery. Simultaneous resection of 3 segments of liver or less with metastases and primary tumor is a safe surgical strategy (complicatios level was 4.8%); simultaneous resection of 3 segments of liver or more increase the complicatios level to 20.9%. Simultaneous resection ensure reduction of hospital stay terms in 58.1% and duration of surgery in 71.3% (p < 0.001). The average cost of treatment patient treating with staged strategy exceeded in simultaneous surgical treatment in 40.9%.

Colonic stenting in acutely obstructed left-sided colon cancer Clinical evaluation and cost analysis

AIM

This retrospective study aims to evaluate clinical and cost effectiveness of colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery and as a palliative treatment in acutely obstructed left-sided colon cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Onehundred fortyfour patients were collected between 2006 and 2012, with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction with no evidence of peritonitis: 96 patients underwent surgical treatment, 48 underwent decompressive stenting. For the stenting we used self-expandable metallic stent in nitinol.

RESULTS

Patients who had successful colonic stenting were 40, 8 underwent elective surgery within 10 days, 32 decompression stenting had only palliative intent. in 8/48 patients subjected to stenting decompression there was a technical failure (16%) and underwent emergency surgery. 40 patients had follow-up. at the time of observation 36 patients had a functioning stent, within 10 days 8 underwent elective definitive colonic resection with primary anastomosis trought videolaparoscopic thecnical, 4 (10%) had major complications and underwent emergency surgery. no patient of 40 in the stenting group required defunctioning stomas compared to 38 of 96 in emergency surgery group. we also compared the cost of decompressive stenting and emergency surgery treatment in acutely obstructed left-sided colon cancer referring to average cost of drg (1 and 2 code t-student test). the comparison of the average costs between decompressive stenting and emergency surgery was performed in the group of patients underwent palliative treatment separately from ones underwent radical treatment.

CONCLUSION

Colonic stenting followed by elective surgery may be safer and cost-effective, comparing to emergency surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

KEY WORDS

Bowel obstruction, Colonic cancer, Colonic stenting.

Advantages of laparoscopic resection for ileocolic Crohn’s disease

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal procedures are considered to be technically challenging, and there is a lack of consensus regarding the magnitude of their benefits. The laparoscopic approach is generally held to be more expensive. Using a model of a single procedure performed for a single indication (ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease [CD]), we set out to demonstrate the feasibility of this procedure by determining the conversion rate, documenting the patient benefits, and performing a formal cost analysis.

METHODS

Consecutive cases of laparoscopic ileocolic resection for CD were identified (LAP). Case-match methodology identified a series of open laparotomy controls (OPEN) that were matched for five potential confounding criteria: age, gender, diagnosis, type of resection, and date of operation. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative details were gathered. Medical resource utilization was tracked using a standardized database, and all costs were reported in 1999 dollars.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 5.9%. Resolution of ileus occurred more rapidly in the LAP than in the OPEN group. The time to clears in the LAP group was a median of 0 days (range, 0-4) vs 3.0 days (range, 2-8) in the OPEN group (p = 0.0001). Time to regular diet was 2.0 days (range, 1-6) in the LAP group vs 5.0 days (range, 3-12) in the OPEN group (p = 0.0001). Length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in the LAP group (4.0 days [range, 2-8], vs 7.0 days [range, 3-14], p = 0.0001). The LAP group had significantly lower direct costs ($8684 vs $11,373) and indirect costs ($1358 vs $2349) than the OPEN group (p < 0.001). This resulted in total costs of $9895 for LAP vs $13,268 for OPEN (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ileocolic resection for CD is feasible. There are significant postoperative benefits in terms of resolution of ileus, narcotic use, and hospital stay. This approach translates into cost savings of >$3300 for laparoscopic patients.

Incidence trends and predictors for cost and average lengths of stay in colorectal cancer surgery

AIM: To evaluate the changing trends and outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery performed at a large single institution in Taiwan.

METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed 778 patients who received colorectal cancer surgery at E-Da Hospital in Taiwan from 2004 to 2009. These patients were from health examination, inpatient or emergency settings. The following attributes were analyzed in patients who had undergone CRC surgical procedures: gender, age, source, surgical type, tumor number, tumor size, number of lymph node metastasis, pathologic differentiation, chemotherapy, distant metastases, tumor site, tumor stage, average hospitalization cost and average lengths of stay (ALOS). The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the relative rate of change. Regression models were employed to predict average hospitalization cost and ALOS.

RESULTS: The study sample included 458 (58.87%) males and 320 (41.13%) females with a mean age of 64.53 years (standard deviation, 12.33 years; range, 28-86 years). The principal patient source came from inpatient and emergency room (96.02%). The principal tumor sites were noted at the sigmoid colon (35.73%) and rectum (30.46%). Most patients exhibited a tumor stage of 2 (37.28%) or 3 (34.19%). The number of new CRC surgeries performed per 100000 persons was 12.21 in 2004 and gradually increased to 17.89 in 2009, representing a change of 46.52%. During the same period, the average hospitalization cost and ALOS decreased from $5303 to $4062 and from 19.7 to 14.4 d, respectively. The following factors were associated with considerably decreased hospital resource utilization: age, source, surgical type, tumor size, tumor site, and tumor stage.

CONCLUSION: These results can be generalized to patient populations elsewhere in Taiwan and to other countries with similar patient profiles.

Robotic colectomy: is it necessary?

More than 20 years ago the introduction of laparoscopic surgery represented a paradigm shift in the management of colorectal cancer. In most recent years robotic surgery is becoming a viable alternative to laparoscopic and traditional open surgery. The major clear advantages of robotic surgery in comparison with laparoscopy are the lower conversion to open surgery rates and the shorter learning curve. However, the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and different with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery. As for colon cancer there are emerging data that laparoscopic and robotic surgery have the same advantages in terms of faster recovery, although robotic-assisted colectomy is associated with costs increase of care without providing clear reduction in overall morbidity or length of stay. Long-term outcomes for laparoscopic versus robotic colonic resections remain still largely undetermined and randomized controlled clinical trials are required to establish a possible difference in outcomes. Interesting issues for the educational aspects are associated with robotic surgery, as the double console allows the resident to take part actively at the surgical procedure since the beginning of his surgical experience.

A cost-utility analysis of laparoscopic vs open treatment of colorectal cancer in a public hospital of the Greek National Health System

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colectomy has been reported as a safe and oncologically similar operation to open colectomy. A number of expensive surgical instruments are necessary for the procedure which should be applied if it is cost-effective for the patient and the health system in general. The purpose of the current study was the economic evaluation of laparoscopic compared to open colectomy for the treatment of colon cancer in the Greek national health system.

METHODS

Fifty patients undergoing open colectomy and 42 undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were enrolled in this case-control study. Length of hospital stay, duration of operation, complication rates, cost of equipment used, total costs and three questionnaires measuring quality of life /QoL (EQ-5D, SF-36 and QLQ-C30) at baseline, 1 and 3 months after the operation were recorded.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in QoL measured by QALYs between laparoscopic and open colectomy was observed. On the other hand, cost utility analysis revealed that laparoscopic colectomy was more expensive considering the advantages it offers.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colectomy is not superior to open colectomy on a QoL basis in the Greek public hospital system and is less cost-effective compared to the open procedure. Since the expensive equipment used in laparoscopic colectomy seems to be the causative factor for the high cost of this type of operation, an effort should be made to reduce it either by using reusable instruments or by implementing policies aiming at suppliers cutting down equipment charges.

Role of robotic surgery in colorectal resections for cancer

In recent years, robotic surgery is becoming a valid alternative in colorectal diseases treatment to laparoscopic and traditional open surgery. The most relevant reported technical advantages of the robotic surgery are 3D-view, tremor-filtering, seven degree-free motion and a higher comfortable setting for the surgeon. Both case series and comparative studies available in Literature report only short and mid-term outcomes. These studies are able to demonstrate that robotic surgery is as safe and feasible as laparoscopic surgery regarding perioperative outcomes. Trials with long term follow up are needed to establish the real safety and effectiveness of the robotic surgery especially concerning resections for cancer. The robotic surgery could be considered a promising surgical field. The high costs represent one of the most relevant drawbacks.

Cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open colectomy in patients with colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population database

Laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is a safe and reliable option for patients with colon cancer. This study examined factors associated with LC use and cost differences between LC and open colectomy (OC). Using the Cost & Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample database (2008), patients with colon cancer undergoing elective LC or OC were selected. Chi square and Mann-Whitney tests were used to assess differences between LC and OC. Logistic and multiple regression analysis was used to determine variables associated with LC and predictors of cost. All analysis was weighted. A total of 63,950 patients were identified (LC 8.1%, OC 91.9%). The majority was female (52.7%), white (61.4%), using Medicare (61.1%), and had surgery performed at a large (64.2%), nonteaching (56.9%), urban (87.3%) hospital in the South (37.7%). Mean age was 70 years. On unadjusted analysis, LC was associated with a lower mortality rate (1.7 vs 2.4%), fewer complications (18.9 vs 27.1%), shorter length of stay (5 vs 7 days), and lower total charges ($41,971 vs $43,459, all P < 0.001). LC is a less expensive but less popular surgical option for colon cancer. Stage, race, Charlson score, teaching status, location, and hospital size influence the use of a laparoscopic approach. LC is associated with fewer complications and decreased mortality which contribute to its lower cost as compared with OC.

Specialized practice reduces inpatient mortality, length of stay, and cost in the care of colorectal patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether specialized surgeon practice improves clinical outcomes for major inpatient adult colorectal resections.

DESIGN

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for elective colorectal resections performed from 2001 through 2007. Specialization was determined by first identifying surgeons' procedures as either colorectal or noncolorectal. Surgeons were then stratified as either a specialized surgeon, if colorectal cases comprised more than 75% of their caseload, or a nonspecialized surgeon if colorectal cases comprised less than 75%.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The data points collected for these cases were: cost, length of stay, mortality, demographics, comorbidities, acuity of admission, hospital region, hospital location and teaching status, and primary payer information. Cost and length of stay were analyzed using a linear regression model with a log transformation for length of stay. A logistic regression analysis was performed for mortality. These models were adjusted for all other covariates including surgeon volume.

RESULTS

A total of 13,925 surgeons performing 115,540 procedures were analyzed. Specialized surgeons comprised 4.6% of surgeons and performed 17.0% of resections. In multivariate analysis, specialized surgeons had a lower risk of mortality (OR 0.72; CI 0.57-0.90, P = .0044), decreased length of stay (absolute difference in days 0.23; CI 0.11-0.49, P = .0022), and similar hospital cost (absolute cost difference $420 less; CI $238 more to $1079 less, P = .211) compared with nonspecialized surgeons. Although cost was not significant at a 75% specialization cutoff, a relationship exists between lower hospitalization cost and increased surgeon specialization even when controlled for surgeon volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical specialization leads to reductions in mortality, hospital days, and cost for inpatient colorectal care.