Cost of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer

Budget impact analysis of HARMONIC FOCUS™+ Shears for mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery with axillary lymph node dissection compared with monopolar electrocautery from an Italian hospital perspective

Background

Mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, both with axillary lymph node dissection, are common treatments for early-stage breast cancer. Monopolar electrocautery is typically used for both procedures, despite evidence of improved clinical outcomes with HARMONIC FOCUS™+. This analysis evaluated the budget impact of adopting HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery for patients undergoing these procedures from an Italian hospital perspective.

Methods

Total costs for an annual caseload of 100 patients undergoing mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, with either the intervention or comparator were calculated. Italian clinical and cost input data were utilised. The analysis included costs for the device, operating room time, postoperative length of stay, treating seroma and managing postoperative chest wall drainage. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty of model input values. Two scenario analyses investigated the impact of conservative estimates of postoperative length of stay reduction and daily hospital cost on the simulated cost difference.

Results

HARMONIC FOCUS™+ achieves annual savings of EUR 100,043 compared with monopolar electrocautery, derived from lower costs for operating room time, postoperative length of stay and seroma and postoperative chest wall drainage management, offsetting the incremental device cost increase (EUR 43,268). Cost savings are maintained in scenario analyses and across all variations in parameters in deterministic sensitivity analysis, with postoperative hospital stay costs being key drivers of budget impact. The mean (interquartile range) cost savings with HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery in probabilistic sensitivity analysis are EUR 101,637 (EUR 64,390–137,093) with a 98% probability of being cost saving.

Conclusions

The intervention demonstrates robust cost savings compared with monopolar electrocautery for mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, in an Italian hospital setting, and improved clinical and resource outcomes. These findings, with other clinical and cost analyses, support HARMONIC FOCUS™+ use in this setting.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Vaborem in Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) -Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in Italy

BACKGROUND

Vaborem is a fixed dose combination of vaborbactam and meropenem with potent activity against target Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) pathogens, optimally developed for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC). The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Vaborem versus best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment of patients with CRE-KPC associated infections in the Italian setting.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on a decision tree model that simulates the clinical pathway followed by physicians treating patients with a confirmed CRE-KPC infection in a 5-year time horizon. The Italian National Health System perspective was adopted with a 3% discount rate. The clinical inputs were mostly sourced from the phase 3, randomised, clinical trial (TANGO II). Unit costs were retrieved from the Italian official drug pricing list and legislation, while patient resource use was validated by a national expert. Model outcomes included life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, incremental costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Vaborem is expected to decrease the burden associated with treatment failure and reduce the need for chronic renal replacement therapy while costs related to drug acquisition and long-term care (due to higher survival) may increase. Treatment with Vaborem versus BAT leads to a gain of 0.475 LYs, 0.384 QALYs, and incremental costs of €3549, resulting in an ICER and ICUR of €7473/LY and €9246/QALY, respectively. Sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of the model and also revealed that the probability of Vaborem being cost-effective reaches 90% when willingness to pay is €15,850/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Italian setting, the introduction of Vaborem will lead to a substantial increase in the quality of life together with a minimal cost impact, therefore Vaborem is expected to be a cost-effective strategy compared to BAT.

Health economic studies of colorectal cancer and the contribution of administrative data: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Several forces are contributing to an increase in the number of people living with and surviving colorectal cancer (CRC). However, due to the lack of available data, little is known about the implications of these forces. In recent years, the use of administrative records to inform research has been increasing. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential contribution that administrative data could have on the health economic research of CRC.

METHODS

To achieve this aim, we conducted a systematic review of the health economic CRC literature published in the United Kingdom and Europe within the last decade (2009-2019).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven relevant studies were identified and divided into economic evaluations, cost of illness studies and cost consequence analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of administrative data, including cancer registry, screening and hospital records, within the health economic research of CRC is commonplace. However, we found that this data often come from regional databases, which reduces the generalisability of results. Further, administrative data appear less able to contribute towards understanding the wider and indirect costs associated with the disease. We explore several ways in which various sources of administrative data could enhance future research in this area.

Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: Economic and clinical outcomes in the Brazilian healthcare

Laparoscopic surgery has become the preferred surgical approach of several colorectal conditions. However, the economic results of this are quite controversial. The degree of adoption of laparoscopic technology, as well as the aptitude of the surgeons, can have an influence not only in the clinical outcomes but also in the total procedure cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgeries, compared to open procedures in Brazil.All patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries between January 2012 and December 2013 were eligible to the retrospective cohort. The considered follow-up period was within 30 days from the index procedure. The outcomes evaluated were the length of stay, blood transfusion, intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, use of antibiotics, the development of anastomotic leakage, readmission, and the total hospital costs including re-admissions.Two hundred eighty patients, who met the eligibility criteria, were included in the analysis. Patients in the laparoscopic group had a shorter length of stay in comparison with the open group (6.02 ± 3.86 vs 9.86 ± 16.27, P < .001). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. The total costs were similar between the 2 groups, in the multivariate analysis (generalized linear model ratio of means 1.20, P = .074). The cost predictors were the cancer diagnosis and age.Laparoscopic colorectal surgery presents a 17% decrease in the duration of the hospital stay without increasing the total hospitalization costs. The factors associated with increased hospital costs were age and the diagnosis of cancer.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

A National study on the adoption of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the elderly population: current state and value proposition

BACKGROUND

The economic and clinical benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery are proven, yet may be underutilized in appropriate cases, especially in the elderly. Since the elderly constitute the greatest colorectal surgical volume, our goal was to identify trends in utilization and impact of laparoscopy in this cohort.

METHODS

A national review of elective inpatient colorectal resections from the Premier Inpatient Database between 2010 and 2015 was performed. Patients were included if elderly (≥ 65 years), then grouped into open or laparoscopic procedures. The main outcome measures were trends in utilization by approach and total costs for the episode of care, length of stay (LOS), readmission, and complications by approach in the elderly. Multivariable regression models controlled for differences across platforms, adjusting for patient demographic, comorbidities and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

In 70,655 elderly patients evaluated, laparoscopic adoption remained lower than open throughout the study period. Rates increased until 2013, then declined, with increasing rates of open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower mean total costs ($4012 less/case), complications and readmissions (36% and 33% less, respectively), and shorter LOS (2.6 less days) than open cases (all p < 0.0001). When complications occurred, they were less severe and the readmission episodes were less costly with laparoscopy than open colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of laparoscopy in the elderly has lagged behind open surgery and even declined in recent years despite being associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost. With this tremendous value proposition to increase use of laparoscopic surgery in the elderly, further work needs to evaluate root causes of the disparity.

Effects of laparoscopic surgery on survival, quality of care and utilization in patients with colon cancer: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopy is a safe and effective treatment for colon cancer. However, its effects on short- and long-term health outcomes and medical utilization are not fully elucidated. This study aimed to compare short- and long-term utilization and health outcomes of colon cancer patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

This study was conducted by linking data from Taiwan Cancer Registry, National Health Insurance claims and Death Registry. Patients aged 18 and older with colon cancer between 2009 and 2012 were included in the study. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias between laparoscopic and open surgery groups. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear mixed logistic regression were used to test hypotheses.

RESULTS

Among the 11,269 colon cancer patients who underwent colectomy, 3236 (28.72%) received laparoscopy and 8033 (71.28%) underwent open surgery. Patients who received laparoscopic surgery had better overall survival (HR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97). These patients also had lower 30 day mortality (0.44% vs. 0.91%), lower 1 year mortality (2.83% vs. 4.68%), lower overall occurrence of complications (6.16% vs. 8.77%), shorter mean length of stay (12.53 vs. 14.93 days) and lower cost for index hospitalization (US$4325.34 vs. US$4453.90). No significant differences were observed in medical utilization over a period of 365 days after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that, in both the short- and long-term post-operation periods, laparoscopic surgery reduced the likelihood of postoperative complications, 30 day, and 1 year mortality while being no more expensive than open surgery for colon cancer.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery, mini-laparotomy and conventional laparotomy in patients with Stage I-III colorectal cancer

Background:

Three operative techniques have been used for colorectal cancer (CRC) resection: Conventional laparotomy (CL) and the mini-invasive techniques (MITs)– laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) and mini-laparotomy (ML). The aim of the study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the three surgical approaches for Stage I–III CRC resection.

Patients and Methods:

This study enrolled 688 patients with Stage I–III CRC undergoing curative resection. The primary endpoints were perioperative quality and outcomes. The secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR).

Results:

Patients undergoing LAS had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (P = 0.002) and earlier resumption of normal diet (P = 0.025). Although post-operative complication rates were remarkably higher in patients undergoing CL than in those undergoing MITs (P = 0.002), no difference was observed in the post-operative mortality rate (P = 0.099) or 60-day re-intervention rate (P = 0.062). The quality of operation as assessed by the number of lymph nodes harvested and rates of R0 resection did not differ among the groups (all P > 0.05). During a median follow-up of 5.42 years, no significant difference was observed among the treatment groups in the rates of 3-year late morbidity, 3-year LR, 5-year LR, 5-year OS or 5-year DFS (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

Patients undergoing CL had higher post-operative morbidities. Moreover, the study findings confirm the favourable short-term and comparable long-term outcomes of LAS and ML for curative CRC resection. Therefore, both MITs may be feasible and safe alternatives to CL for Stage I-III CRC resection.

The true cost of thyroid surgery determined by a micro-costing approach

Whether the amount of the current DRG tariff for thyroid surgery covers its actual cost has been questioned. We estimated a reliable cost of thyroid surgery for a large Italian hospital. A micro-costing approach is used with data from the University Hospital "Umberto I," a large facility that conducts a high volume of thyroidectomy surgical procedures in the Lazio region. The direct costs of surgery and hospitalization for a total and a hemi-thyroidectomy were €4956 and €4673, respectively. When compared to the DRG tariff of €3340, total thyroidectomy was €1616 (48 %) more per procedure and hemi-thyroidectomy was €1333 (40 %) more per procedure. This DRG shortfall is calculated to generate an annual procedure-specific deficit of approximately €1.38 million for this hospital. Furthermore, when the costs associated with pre-surgical work-up, post-surgical follow-up, and complications management through 12 months are incorporated, the estimated costs of total and hemi-thyroidectomy rose to €5812 and €5277, respectively. The true cost of thyroid surgery in Italy is significantly higher than what has been reported in the literature or reimbursed by the DRG tariff.

A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are proven, but overall financial benefits are not fully explored. Our goal was to evaluate the financial benefits of MIS from the payer's perspective to demonstrate the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A Truven MarketScan^® claim-based analysis identified all 2013 elective, inpatient colectomies. Cases were stratified into open or MIS approaches based on ICD-9 procedure codes; then costs were assessed using a similar distribution across diagnosis related groups (DRGs). Care episodes were compared for average allowed costs, complication, and readmission rates after adjusting costs for demographics, comorbidities, and geographic region.

RESULTS

A total of 4615 colectomies were included-2054 (44.5 %) open and 2561 (55.5 %) MIS. Total allowed episode costs were significantly lower MIS than open ($37,540 vs. $45,284, p < 0.001). During the inpatient stay, open cases had significantly greater ICU utilization (3.9 % open vs. 2.0 % MIS, p < 0.001), higher overall complications (52.8 % open vs. 32.3 % MIS, p < 0.001), higher colorectal-specific complications (32.5 % open vs. 17.9 % MIS, p < 0.001), longer LOS (6.39 open vs. 4.44 days MIS, p < 0.001), and higher index admission costs ($39,585 open vs. $33,183 MIS, p < 0.001). Post-discharge, open cases had significantly higher readmission rates/100 cases (11.54 vs. 8.28; p = 0.0013), higher average readmission costs ($3055 vs. $2,514; p = 0.1858), and greater 30-day healthcare costs than MIS ($5699 vs. $4357; p = 0.0033). The net episode cost of care was $7744/patient greater for an open colectomy, even with similar DRG distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

In a commercially insured population, the risk-adjusted allowed costs for MIS colectomy episodes were significantly lower than open. The overall cost difference between MIS and open was almost $8000 per patient. This highlights an opportunity for health plans and employers to realize financial benefits by shifting from open to MIS for colectomy. With increasing bundled payment arrangements and accountable care sharing programs, the cost impact of shifting from open to MIS introduces an opportunity for cost savings.

Single-Access Laparoscopic Rectal Resection Versus the Multiport Technique

Background. Single-access laparoscopic surgery is not used routinely for the treatment of colorectal disease. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to compare the results of single-access laparoscopic rectal resection (SALR) versus multiaccess laparoscopic rectal resection with a mean follow-up of 24 months. Methods. This retrospective cohort study enrolled 42 patients. Between January 2010 and June 2012, 21 SALRs were performed. These patients were compared with a group of 21 other patients who had undergone multiport laparoscopic rectal resection. This control group had the same exclusion criteria and patient demographics. Short-term outcomes were reassessed with a mean follow-up of 2 years. Statistical analysis included the Student t test and Fisher’s exact test. Finally, we performed a differential cost analysis between the 2 procedures. Results. Exclusion criteria, patient demographics, and indication for surgery were similar in both groups. The conversion rate was 0% in both groups. There were no intraoperative complications or deaths. Bowel recovery was similar in both groups. No interventions, readmissions, or deaths were recorded at 30 days’ follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 24 months, all the patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cancer are still alive and disease free. Considering the selected 3 items, the mean cost per patient for single-access laparoscopic surgery and multiple-access laparoscopic surgery were estimated as 7213 and 7495 Euros, respectively. Conclusion. We think that SALR could be performed in selected patients by surgeons with high multiport laparoscopic skills. It is compulsory by law to evaluate outcomes and cost-effectiveness by using randomized controlled trials.

Challenge or opportunity: outcomes of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer in patients with high operative risk

This study investigated the impact of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection for patients with high operative risk, which was defined as American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grades III and IV. This study was conducted at a single center on patients undergoing rectal resection from 2006 to 2010. After screening by ASA grade III or IV, 248 patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified, involving 104 open and 144 laparoscopic rectal resections. The distribution of the Charlson Comorbidity Index was similar between the two groups. Compared with open rectal resection, laparoscopic resection had a significantly lower total complication rate (P<.0001), lower pain rate (P=.0002), and lower blood loss (P<.0001). It is notable that the two groups of patients had no significant difference in cardiac and pulmonary complication rates. Thus, these data showed that the laparoscopic group for rectal cancer could provide short-term outcomes similar to those of their open resection counterparts with high operative risk. The 5-year actuarial survival rates were 0.8361 and 0.8119 in the laparoscopic and open groups for stage I/II (difference not significant), as was the 5-year overall survival rate in stage III/IV (P=.0548). In patients with preoperative cardiovascular or pulmonary disease, the 5-year survival curves were significantly different (P=.0165 and P=.0210), respectively. The cost per patient did not differ between the two procedures. The results of this analysis demonstrate the potential advantages of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection for high-risk patients, although a randomized controlled trial should be conducted to confirm the findings of the present study.

Cost savings for elective laparoscopic resection compared with open resection for colorectal cancer in a region of high uptake

BACKGROUND

Previous cost analyses of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) reported slightly higher or similar costs to those of open resection. These analyses were based on randomised controlled trials when the laparoscopic approach was newly adopted. This study compared costs for laparoscopic versus open resection in a region of high uptake where adoption is mature.

METHODS

Hospital cost data were obtained for elective resections for CRC that occurred between June 2009 and June 2011 in public hospitals in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome was total cost and secondary outcomes were length-of-stay, operating time, and ICU admission. Multivariate least-squares regression was used to adjust for potential confounders: age, sex, comorbidities, procedure, and hospital volume.

RESULTS

The crude mean cost for laparoscopic resection was euro 20,036 compared with that for open resection of euro 22,780 (difference = euro 2,744). Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection (744/1,397; 53 %) were slightly younger and had fewer comorbidities (decreasing costs) but more had rectal surgery (increasing costs). The adjusted mean cost for laparoscopic resection was euro 20,396 compared with euro 22,442 for open resection (difference = euro 2,054). Compared with open resection, when adjusted for potential confounders, laparoscopic resection resulted in similar operating time (216 vs. 214 min), shorter length-of-stay (difference = -1.1 days, 95 % CI -1.9, -0.3), and shorter admission to ICU (difference = -7.3 h, 95 % CI -11.9, -2.7).

CONCLUSIONS

This non-randomised study in a region of high uptake found a similar operating time and lower cost for laparoscopic resection for CRC compared with those of open resection due to a shorter length-of-stay and shorter time in ICU. Laparoscopic resection for CRC saves money when the procedure is widely adopted and surgeons are experienced in the technique.

A cost comparison of laparoscopic and open colon surgery in a publicly funded academic institution

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the total hospital cost of laparoscopic (lap) and open colon surgery at a publicly funded academic institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open colon surgery for all indications at the University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, from April 2004 to March 2009 were included. Patient demographic, operative, and outcome data were reviewed retrospectively. Hospital costs were determined from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, adjusted for inflation, and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between length of stay and total hospital cost.

RESULTS

There were 391 elective colon resections (223 lap/168 open, 15.4 % conversion). There was no difference in median age, gender, or Charlson score. Body mass index was slightly higher for laparoscopic surgery (27.5/25.9 lap/open; p = 0.008), while the American Society of Anesthesiologists score was slightly higher for open surgery. Median operative time was greater for laparoscopic surgery (224/196 min, lap/open; p = 0.001). There was no difference in complication rates (21.6/22.5 % lap/open; p = 0.900), reoperations (5.8/6.5 % lap/open; p = 0.833) or 30-day readmissions (7.6/12.5 % lap/open; p = 0.122). Number of emergency room visits was greater with open surgery (12.6/20.8 % lap/open; p = 0.037). Operative cost was higher for laparoscopic surgery ($4,171.37/3,489.29 lap/open; p = 0.001), while total hospital cost was significantly reduced ($9,600.22/12,721.41 lap/open; p = 0.001). Median length of stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (5/7 days lap/open; p = 0.000), and this correlated directly with hospital cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colon surgery is associated with increased operative costs but significantly lower total hospital costs. The cost savings is related, in part, to reduced length of stay with laparoscopic surgery.