Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer and polyps: a cost-effectiveness study

Current status of robotic surgery in colorectal residency training programs

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly incorporated into colorectal surgery (CRS) training. The degree to which RS has been integrated into CRS residency training is not well described.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to all 2019 accredited CRS residency programs within the United States and Canada. Program directors (PDs) were queried on how robotic surgery had been integrated into their program, specifics on RS curriculum and opinions on RS training during general surgery residency. We compared survey responses by program type (university-based, university-affiliated programs, or independent programs) and by geographic region. In addition, a chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in survey responses with respect to robotic curriculum components.

RESULTS

Of 66 programs, 42 (64%) responded to the survey. Of the responding programs, 35 (83%) were university-based or university-affiliated, while 7 (17%) were independent. Most programs were in the Midwest (33%). Forty-one (98%) reported having a surgical robot in use at their institution, with 95% reporting active participation of CRS residents in RS. While 74% of programs have a formal RS training curriculum for CRS residents, there was considerable variability in the curriculum elements employed by each institution, and the differences in proportions of these elements were significant (χ2 99.8, p < 0.001). The median operative approach to abdominopelvic cases was estimated to be 33% robotic, 40% laparoscopic and 20% open. There were no significant differences in the survey responses between university/university-affiliated and independent programs (p > 0.05) or among the different regions (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that almost all CRS residencies have integrated RS and have trainees operating at the robotic console. Most programs have a robotics curriculum and there are expanding indications for RS within CRS. This expansion calls for discussion on implementation of training standards such as curricular requisites, baseline competency assessments, and definitions of minimum case requirements to ensure adequate training.

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.

The impact of surgeon choices on costs associated with uncomplicated minimally invasive colectomy: you are not as important as you think

Background

There is increasing public discussion about the escalating cost of healthcare in America. There are no published data regarding the contribution of individual surgeons’ choices on the cost of uncomplicated minimally invasive colectomy.

Methods

A review of a hospital cost-accounting database of the direct costs related to the index operation and post-operative care of all patients who underwent elective minimally invasive segmental colectomy over a 1-year period was performed.

Results

A total of 111 cases were enrolled in this study, 18 of which were performed robotically. The average direct cost after minimally invasive colectomy was $5536. The cost of robotic colectomy was 53% greater than laparoscopic ($7806 vs $5096, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in overall costs among laparoscopic cases performed by three surgeons ($5099 vs $5108 vs $5055, p = 0.987). Average operating room supply costs among the three surgeons were $1236, $1105 and $1030, respectively (p = 0.067), with a standard deviation of $328 (6.4% of overall cost).

Conclusions

No significant difference in overall costs between surgeons was demonstrated despite varied training, experience levels and operative techniques. Total costs are relatively institutionally fixed and minimally influenced by variations in individual surgeon preferences.

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.

Systematic review of health state utility values for economic evaluation of colorectal cancer

Cost-utility analyses undertaken to inform decision making regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) require a set of health state utility values (HSUVs) so that the time CRC patients spend in different health states can be aggregated into quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). This study reviews CRC-related HSUVs that could be used in economic evaluation and assesses their advantages and disadvantages with respect to valuation methods used and CRC clinical pathways. Fifty-seven potentially relevant studies were identified which collectively report 321 CRC-related HSUVs. HSUVs (even for similar health states) vary markedly and this adds to the uncertainty regarding estimates of cost-effectiveness. There are relatively few methodologically robust HSUVs that can be directly used in economic evaluations concerned with CRC. There is considerable scope to develop new HSUVs which improve on those currently available either by expanded collection of generic measures or by making greater use of condition-specific data, for example, using mapping algorithms.

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.

Cost implications and oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery for right hemicolectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have suggested that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resection confers a cost benefit compared with open surgery. These studies have considered a wide range of colorectal operations together rather than focusing on a single procedure. Our study compared direct clinical costs for laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy.

METHODS

Clinicopathological data and cost of treatment for all patients who underwent a right hemicolectomy between 2012 and 2013 were collected. The primary outcome was total cost of treatment. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, operative time and morbidity. The minimum follow-up duration was 12 months. Costs for laparoscopic and open surgery for elective resection alone were compared. Further analyses were performed comparing emergency cases with elective cases and cancer with non-cancer cases.

RESULTS

There were 83 patients who underwent a right hemicolectomy during the study period and of these, 65 had an elective procedure. The total cost of a laparoscopic procedure was £3,998.12 compared with £3,427.50 for open surgery (p=0.039). The length of stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery while the cost of an emergency right hemicolectomy was significantly greater than for elective surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the length of stay for laparoscopic surgery was shorter, this did not translate to a reduction in cost. The cost benefit from a shorter length of stay was offset by a greater cost of consumables. Cost effectiveness analyses should be designed carefully, and they should consider individual operations separately when making healthcare management and funding decisions.

A cost-minimization analysis of first intention laparoscopic compared to open right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

The morbidity, mortality and survival following a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer are equivalent to an open operation. However, the cost of a longer operating time and consumables may offset savings from a shorter length of stay (LOS). A cost minimization study was undertaken to compare the relative costs.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive elective right hemicolectomies for colon cancer performed over 5 years by two teams. One team performed an open operation (OG), the other intended to perform all operations laparoscopically (LG). Clinical outcomes and relative costs were evaluated. Results expressed as mean ± SEM.

RESULTS

There were 58 patients in the open group and 56 in the first intention laparoscopic group, of which 77% were completed laparoscopically. There was no difference in age, gender or cancer stage. The complications, mortality and 5-year survival were similar. Anaesthetic (LG = 63 ± 3, OG = 62 ± 2 min) and surgical times (LG = 144 ± 8, OG = 143 ± 5 min) were similar. Consumables cost €571 more and the total theatre cost was €643 ± 256 higher in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (p = 0.01). The LOS in the laparoscopic group (4.6 ± 0.5 days) was less than in the open group (8.3 ± 1 days, p < 0.01) saving €1960 ± 636 per patient. Overall, first intention laparoscopic right hemicolectomies saved €1316 ± 733 per patient. A probability sensitivity analysis indicated a 62% probability that a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy was cheaper than an open operation.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is oncologically equivalent but less costly and should be considered the procedure of choice for right-sided colon cancer unless contraindicated.

A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical value is based on optimizing clinical and financial outcomes. The clinical benefits of laparoscopic surgery are well established; however, many patients are still not offered a laparoscopic procedure. Our objective was to compare the modern clinical and financial outcomes of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The Premier Perspective database identified patients undergoing elective colorectal resections from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. Cases were stratified by operative approach into laparoscopic and open cohorts. Groups were controlled on all demographics, diagnosis, procedural, hospital characteristics, surgeon volume, and surgeon specialty and then compared for clinical and financial outcomes. The main outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), complications, readmission rates, and cost by surgical approach.

RESULTS

A total of 6343 patients were matched and analyzed in each cohort. The most common diagnosis was diverticulitis (p = 0.0835) and the most common procedure a sigmoidectomy (p = 0.0962). The LOS was significantly shorter in laparoscopic compared to open (mean 5.78 vs. 7.80 days, p < 0.0001). The laparoscopic group had significantly lower readmission (5.82 vs. 7.68 %, p < 0.0001), complication (32.60 vs. 42.28 %, p < 0.0001), and mortality rates (0.52 vs. 1.28 %, p < 0.0001). The total cost was significantly lower in laparoscopic than in open (mean $17,269 vs. $20,552, p < 0.0001). By category, laparoscopy was significantly more cost-effective for pharmacy (p < 0.0001), room and board (p < 0.0001), recovery room (p = 0.0058), ICU (p < 0.0001), and laboratory and imaging services (both p < 0.0001). Surgical supplies (p < 0.0001), surgery (p < 0.0001), and anesthesia (p = 0.0053) were higher for the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is more cost-effective and produces better patient outcomes than open colorectal surgery. Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is now the standard that should be offered to patients, providing value to both patient and provider.

Nationwide variation in outcomes and cost of laparoscopic procedures

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare systems and surgeons are under increasing pressure to provide high-quality care for the lowest possible cost . This study utilizes national data to examine the outcomes and costs of common laparoscopic procedures based on hospital type and location.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample was queried from 2008 to 2011 for five laparoscopic procedures: colectomy (LC), inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair (LVHR), Nissen fundoplication (NF), and cholecystectomy (LCh). Outcomes, including complication rate and inpatient mortality, were stratified by region and hospital type. Both univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed using regression-based survey methods; risk-adjusted mean costs for hospital were calculated after adjusting for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, the rates of minor complications varied significantly between geographic regions for LCh, LC, NF, and LVHR (p < 0.05). Though LCh and LVHR had statistical variation between regions for rates of major complications (p < 0.05), all regions were equivalent in rates of inpatient mortality for the procedures (p > 0.05). Rural and urban centers had similar rates of complications (p > 0.05), except for higher rates of major complications following IHR and LC in rural centers (p < 0.02) and following Nissen fundoplication in urban facilities(p < 0.0003). Though urban centers were more expensive for all procedures (p < 0.0001), mortality was similar between groups (p > 0.05). For hospital ownership, private investor-owned facilities were substantially more expensive (p < 0.0001), but had no significant differences in complications compared to other hospital types (p > 0.05). In multivariate analysis, while patient factors helped explain differences between outcome differences in different hospital types and locations, in general, the difference in cost remained statistically significant between hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Though patient demographics and characteristics accounted for some differences in postoperative outcomes after common laparoscopic procedures, higher cost of care was not associated with better outcomes or more complex patients.