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

National trends and costs of same day discharge in patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery Pathways (ERPs) have enabled safe same day discharge (SDD) of select patients after elective minimally invasive colectomy. We aimed to analyse the financial impact of SDD in these cases.

METHODS

We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2016-2019) and included patients with a hospital length of stay ≤2 days after minimally invasive elective colectomy. Propensity score matched pairs of patients discharged on the day of the operation and those discharged on post operative day 1 or 2 were compared. Our primary outcome was the combined cost of hospitalization and readmission.

RESULTS

SDD patients had lower comorbidity (33 ​% vs 21 ​%) and illness severity (79 ​% vs 63 ​%), more Medicare insurance (44 ​% vs 38 ​%), and more benign neoplasms (52 ​% vs 17 ​%). Most SDD patients underwent right colectomy (89 ​%). Across 647 matched pairs, total cost was significantly lower in SDD patients ($8000 vs. $12,900; p ​< ​0.001) due to cheaper index hospitalizations. No difference in readmission rates or costs emerged.

CONCLUSION

SDD reduced costs of index hospitalization and may be cost-effective in a select cohort of healthier patients.

A retrospective analysis of early discharge following minimally invasive colectomy in an enhanced recovery pathway

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence to support discharge prior to gastrointestinal recovery following colorectal surgery. Furthermore, many patients are discharged early despite being excluded from an ambulatory colectomy pathway. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients discharged early following laparoscopic colectomy in an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy at a single university-affiliated colorectal referral center (08/2017-06/2021) was performed. Patients were included if they had undergone elective laparoscopic colectomy or ileostomy closure and excluded if they had been enrolled in an ambulatory colectomy pathway. Patients were then divided into three groups: LOS =1 day, LOS 2-3 days, and LOS 4+ days. The main outcomes were 30-day emergency room (ER) visits and readmissions. Reasons for inpatient stay per post-operative day (POD) were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 497 patients were included [LOS1 n = 63 (13%), LOS2-3 n = 284 (57%), and LOS4+ n = 150 (30%)]. There were no differences in patient characteristics, diagnosis, or procedure between the groups. Patients were discharged with gastrointestinal recovery (GI-3) in 54% LOS1 vs. 98% LOS2-3 vs. 100% LOS4+ (p<0.001). Shorter procedure duration, transversus abdominus plane block, and lower opioid requirements were associated with shorter LOS (p<0.001). The absence of flatus was the most common reason to keep patients hospitalized: 61% on POD1, 21% on POD2, and 8% on POD3 (p<0.001). There were no differences in 30-day emergency visits, or readmission between the groups. In the LOS1 group, there were no differences in outcomes between patients with full return of bowel function at discharge compared to those without.

CONCLUSION

Discharge on POD1 was not associated with increased emergency department use, complications, or readmissions. Importantly, full return of bowel function at discharge did not affect outcomes. There may be potential to expand eligibility criteria for ambulatory colectomy protocol.

Postoperative Use of Biologics was Less Common among Patients with Crohn's Disease With Emergent/Urgent Versus Elective Intestinal Resection

Background & Aims

Given the risk of intestinal resection for Crohn's disease, postoperative treatment may be informed by several risk factors, including resection type. We compared postoperative treatment strategies for Crohn's disease between emergent/urgent versus elective resection.

Methods

We identified patients with intestinal resection for Crohn's disease between 2002-2018 using the MarketScan databases. We classified emergent/urgent resections as those occurring after emergency department admission or after the second day of admission. We estimated adjusted risk differences for the association between resection type (emergent/urgent versus elective) and 6-month postoperative medication strategy (biologic monotherapy, biologic combination therapy with an immunomodulator, immunomodulator monotherapy, other non-biologic medication for Crohn's [5-aminosalicylates, antibiotics, corticosteroids], or no medications for Crohn's).

Results

During 6 months after resection among 4,187 patients, 23% received biologic monotherapy, 6% received combination therapy, 16% received immunomodulator monotherapy, and 36% received other non-biologics. Compared to elective resection, emergent/urgent resection was associated with more common use of "other non-biologic" medications (risk difference 6.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8%, 10.0%), but less common use of biologic monotherapy (risk difference -3.2%; 95% CI -6.2%, -0.1%) and no medications (risk difference -3.6%; 95% CI -6.6%, -0.6%).

Conclusions

Although patients with emergent/urgent resection may benefit from more aggressive postoperative therapy, there was evidence that emergent/urgent resection was more associated than elective resection with postoperative use of non-biologics for Crohn's disease. Future studies of treatment patterns and comparative effectiveness of postoperative treatment strategies for Crohn's patients should consider these differences between resection types, which may be important drivers of longer-term outcomes.

[Impact of the Nursing Personnel Strengthening Act on minimally invasive surgery exemplified by right-sided hemicolectomy from an economic perspective]

BACKGROUND

In the past, a reduced length of postoperative hospital stay was considered a sufficient trade-off to refinance the additional costs associated with minimally invasive surgery; however, with the implementation of the Nursing Personnel Strengthening Act and disincorporation of nursing costs, this argumentation needs to be fundamentally reevaluated.

METHOD

Using right-sided hemicolectomy as an example, a retrospective case analysis was conducted. Cost reductions associated with the length of hospital stay were compared before and after the introduction of the revised German diagnosis-related groups (aG-DRG) and offset against the increased material and personnel costs.

RESULTS

Among the analyzed cases, the utilization of minimally invasive surgical techniques led to a substantial cost reduction per case compared to conventional surgical treatment. After the introduction of the aG-DRGs the financial benefits of a shortened hospital stay are greatly diminished and cannot be used to refinance the expenses necessary to perform minimally invasive surgery. From a strictly economical perspective, there is a strong incentive to only perform open surgical procedures.

CONCLUSION

Disincorporation of nursing costs has destabilized the fragile concept of indirect refinancing of advanced operative techniques by the financial incentives associated with a shorter hospital stay. In order to comply with statutory regulations to implicate a performance-based funding, there is an urgent necessity to adjust the grouping algorithms for minimally invasive surgical procedures to the corresponding flat rates.

Financial burden of postoperative complications following colonic resection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Colonic resection is a common surgical procedure that is associated with a high rate of postoperative complications. Postoperative complications are expected to be major contributors to hospital costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to outline the health costs of postoperative complications following colon resection surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica database, Cochrane, and Economics literature medical databases were searched from 2010 to 2019 to identify English studies containing an economic evaluation of postoperative complications following colonic resection in adult patients. All surgical techniques and indications for colon resection were included. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, comparative observational studies, and conference abstracts.

RESULTS

Thirty-four articles met the eligibility criteria. We found a high overall complication incidence with associated increased costs ranging from $2290 to $43,146. Surgical site infections and anastomotic leak were shown to be associated with greater resource utilization relative to other postoperative complications. Postoperative complications were associated with greater incidence of hospital readmission, which in turn is highlighted as a significant financial burden. Weak evidence demonstrates increased complication incidence and costlier complications with open colon surgery as compared to laparoscopic surgery. Notably, we identified a vast degree of heterogeneity in study design, complication reporting and costing methodology preventing quantitative analysis of cost results.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complications in colonic resection appear to be associated with a significant financial burden. Therefore, large, prospective, cost-benefit clinical trials investigating preventative strategies, with detailed and consistent methodology and reporting standards, are required to improve patient outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of our health care systems.

The use of emergency laparoscopy for acute abdomen in the elderly: the FRAILESEL Italian Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

As the world population is aging rapidly, emergency abdominal surgery for acute abdomen in the elderly represents a global issue, both in developed and developing countries. Data regarding all the elderly patients who underwent emergency abdominal surgery from January 2017 to December 2017 at 36 Italian surgical departments were analyzed with the aim to appraise the contemporary reality regarding the use of emergency laparoscopy for acute abdomen in the elderly. 1993 patients were enrolled. 1369 (68.7%) patients were operated with an open technique; whereas, 624 (31.3%) underwent a laparoscopic operation. The postoperative morbidity rate was 32.6%, with a statically significant difference between the open and the laparoscopic groups (36.2% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). The reported mortality rate was 8.8%, with a statistically significant difference between the open and the laparoscopic groups (11.2% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001). Our results demonstrated that patients in the ASA II (58.1%), ASA III (68.7%) and ASA IV (88.5%) groups were operated with the traditional open technique in most of the cases. Only a small percentage of patients underwent laparoscopy for perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer repair (18.9%), adhesiolyses with/without small bowel resection (12.2%), and large bowel resection (10.7%). Conversion to open technique was associated with a higher mortality rate (11.1% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001) and overall morbidity (38.9% versus 22.1%, p = 0.001) compared with patients who did not undergo conversion. High creatinine (p < 0.001) and glycaemia (p = 0.006) levels, low hemoglobin levels (p < 0.001), oral anticoagulation therapy (p = 0.001), acute respiratory failure (p < 0.001), presence of malignancy (p = 0.001), SIRS (p < 0.001) and open surgical approach (p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity. Regardless of technical progress, elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery are at very high risk for in-hospital complications. A detailed analysis of complications and mortality in the present study showed that almost 9% of elderly patients died after surgery for acute abdomen, and over 32% developed complications.

Demographics and Outcomes of Spine Surgery in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians: A Comparison of the National Inpatient Sample, MarketScan and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Databases

Introduction

Despite the increasing use of national databases to conduct spine research, questions remain regarding their study validity and consistency. This study tested for similarity and inter-database reliability in reported measures between three commonly used national databases.

Methods

International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9) codes were used to identify elderly (80-100 years) who underwent spine surgery patients in Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® claims database, National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) discharge database and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2006-2016). Patient baseline characteristics, comorbid status, insurance enrollment, and outcomes were queried and compared. 

Results

We analyzed 15,105 MarketScan, 40,854 NIS, and 7682 NSQIP patients between ages 80 to 100 years (median, 82 years) who underwent spine surgeries during the study period. A majority of patients in both MarketScan and NIS were insured by Medicare (97% vs. 94%). Patients in MarketScan had lower comorbidity scores (comorbidity, 0-2) compared to those in NIS and NSQIP databases. The most common diagnosis was spinal stenosis in MarketScan (54.4%), NIS (54.6%), and NSQIP databases (65.2%). Fusion was the most common procedure performed in MarketScan (48.9%) and NIS databases (46.2%), whereas decompression (laminectomy/laminotomy) was the most common procedure in the NSQIP database (51.84%). In-hospital complications (any) were 6.5% in the MarketScan cohort, 5.3% in the NIS, and 2.02% in the NSQIP cohort. In terms of 30-day complications (any), the MarketScan database reported higher complications rate (12.7%) compared to the NSQIP database (5.08%). In-hospital mortality was slightly higher in the NIS database (0.32%) compared to MarketScan (0.21%) and NSQIP database (0.2%). MarketScan and NIS databases showed an increased risk of complications with increasing age, whereas NIS and NSQIP showed increasing complications with a higher number of comorbidities. Male gender had higher complication at 30-day post-discharge using MarketScan and NSQIP database.

Conclusions

Patients in the NSQIP and NIS database have more comorbidities; patients in the MarketScan database had the highest number of perioperative and 30-day post-discharge complications with the highest number of fusion procedures performed. Patients in the NSQIP database had the lowest number of fusion procedures and complication rates. As databases gain popularity in spine surgery, clinicians and reviewers should be cautious in generalizing results to whole populations and pay close attention to the population being represented by the data from which the statistical significance was derived.

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.

Cost of benign versus oncologic colon resection among fee-for-service Medicare enrollees

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Reimbursement for colonic pathology by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are grouped in the Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG). With limited available data, we sought to compare the relative impact of malignant vs benign colonic pathology on reimbursement under the MS-DRG system.

METHODS

We used 5% national Medicare data from 2011 to 2014. Patients were classified as having benign disease or malignancy. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis were used to evaluate the surgical approach and health resource utilization.

RESULTS

Of 10 928 patients, most were Non-Hispanic White women. The majority underwent open colectomy in both cohorts (P < .001). Colectomy for benign disease was associated with higher total charges (P < .001) and a longer length of stay (P = .0002). Despite higher charges, payments were not significantly different between the cohorts (P = .434). Both inpatient mortality and discharge to a rehab facility were higher in the oncologic group (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Payment methodology for colectomy under the CMS MS-DRG system does not appear to accurately reflect the episode cost of care. The data suggest that inpatient costs are not fully compensated. A transition to value-based payments with expanded episode duration will require a better understanding of unique costs before adoption.

Patient Perceptions and Quality of Life After Colon and Rectal Surgery: What Do Patients Really Want?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery outcomes must be accurately assessed and aligned with patient priorities. No study to date has investigated the patient's subjective assessment of outcomes most important to them during and following their surgical recovery. Although surgeons greatly value the benefits of laparoscopy, patient priorities remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess what aspects of patients' perioperative care and recovery they value most when queried in the postoperative period.

DESIGN

This study is an exploratory cross-sectional investigation of a defined retrospective patient population. Enrollees were stratified into subcategories and analyzed, with statistical analysis performed via χ test and unpaired t test.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single academic medical center in New England.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent a colorectal surgical resection between 2009 and 2015 were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients within a preidentified population were asked to voluntarily complete a 32-item questionnaire regarding their surgical care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were patient perioperative and postoperative quality of life and satisfaction on selected areas of functioning.

RESULTS

Of 167 queried respondents, 92.2% were satisfied with their recovery. Factors considered most important included being cured of colorectal cancer (76%), not having a permanent stoma (78%), and avoiding complications (74%). Least important included length of stay (13%), utilization of laparoscopy (14%), and incision appearance and length (2%, 4%).

LIMITATIONS

The study had a relatively low response rate, the study is susceptible to responder's bias, and there is temporal variability from surgery to questionnaire within the patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients reported high satisfaction with their care. Most important priorities included being free of cancer, stoma, and surgical complications. In contrast, outcomes traditionally important to surgeons such as laparoscopy, incision appearance, and length of stay were deemed less important. This research helps elucidate the outcomes patients truly consider valuable, and surgeons should focus on these outcomes when making surgical decisions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A596. See Visual Abstract at https://tinyurl.com/yb25xl66.

The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Conversion from minimally invasive to open colorectal surgery remains common and costly. Robotic colorectal surgery is associated with lower rates of conversion than laparoscopy, but institutions and payers remain concerned about equipment and implementation costs. Recognizing that reimbursement reform and bundled payments expand perspectives on cost to include the entire surgical episode, we evaluated the role of minimally invasive conversion in total payments.

METHODS

This is an observational study from a linked data registry including clinical data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative and payment data from the Michigan Value Collaborative between July 2012 and April 2015. We evaluated colorectal resections initiated with open and minimally invasive approaches, and compared reported risk-adjusted and price-standardized 30-day episode payments and their components.

RESULTS

We identified 1061 open, 1604 laparoscopic, and 275 robotic colorectal resections. Adjusted episode payments were significantly higher for open operations than for minimally invasive procedures completed without conversion ($19,489 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). The conversion rate was significantly higher with laparoscopic than robotic operations (15.1 vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Adjusted episode payments for minimally invasive operations converted to open were significantly higher than for those completed by minimally invasive approaches ($18,098 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). Payments for operations completed robotically were greater than those completed laparoscopically ($16,949 vs. $15,250, p < 0.001), but the difference was substantially decreased when conversion to open cases was included ($16,939 vs. $15,699, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Episode payments for open colorectal surgery exceed both laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive options. Conversion to open surgery significantly increases the payments associated with minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Because conversion rates in robotic colorectal operations are half of those in laparoscopy, the excess expenditures attributable to robotics are attenuated by consideration of the cost of conversions.