Outcomes and Cost Comparison of 3 Different Laparoscopic Approach for Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of 551 Cases

BACKGROUND

At our institution, we switched from hand-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HRN) to hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HTN); we later switched to standard retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SRN). This study was performed to evaluate outcomes and hospital costs among the 3 techniques.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, single-center, inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis study compared the outcomes among 551 cases of living donor kidney transplantation between 2014 and 2022.

RESULTS

After the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there were 114 cases in the HRN group, 204 cases in the HTN group, and 213 cases in the SRN group. Donor complication rates were lowest in the SRN group but did not differ between the HRN and HTN groups (1.1 vs 4.4 and 5.9%, P = .021). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest serum C-reactive protein concentrations on postoperative day 1 (4.3 vs 10.5 and 7.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the shortest postoperative stay (4.3 vs 7.4 and 8.4 days, P < .001). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest total cost among the 3 groups (8868 vs 9709 and 10,592 USD, P < .0001). Donors in the SRN group also had the lowest costs in terms of "basic medical fees," "medication and injection fees," "Intraoperative drug and material costs," and "testing fees." Furthermore, the presence of complications was significantly correlated with higher total hospital costs (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

SRN appeared to have the least invasive and complication, and a potential cost savings compared with the HRN and HTN.

Nonreimbursed Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Case Study From Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Living donors may incur out-of-pocket costs during the donation process. While many jurisdictions have programs to reimburse living kidney donors for expenses, few programs have been evaluated.

METHODS

The Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors was launched in the province of Ontario, Canada in 2008 and reimburses travel, parking, accommodation, meals, and loss of income; each category has a limit and the maximum total reimbursement is $5500 CAD. We conducted a case study to compare donors' incurred costs (out-of-pocket and lost income) with amounts reimbursed by Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors. Donors with complete or partial cost data from a large prospective cohort study were linked to Ontario's reimbursement program to determine the gap between incurred and reimbursed costs (n = 159).

RESULTS

The mean gap between costs incurred and costs reimbursed to the donors was $1313 CAD for out-of-pocket costs and $1802 CAD for lost income, representing a mean reimbursement gap of $3115 CAD. Nondirected donors had the highest mean loss for out-of-pocket costs ($2691 CAD) and kidney paired donors had the highest mean loss for lost income ($4084 CAD). There were no significant differences in the mean gap across exploratory subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reimbursement programs minimize some of the financial loss for living kidney donors. Opportunities remain to remove the financial burden of living kidney donors.

Association of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy With Perioperative Outcomes and Health Care Costs, 2003 to 2015

IMPORTANCE

Use of robotic surgery has increased in urological practice over the last decade. However, the use, outcomes, and costs of robotic nephrectomy are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the trend in use of robotic-assisted operations for radical nephrectomy in the United States and to compare the perioperative outcomes and costs with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used the Premier Healthcare database to evaluate outcomes of patients who had undergone robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal mass at 416 US hospitals between January 2003 and September 2015. Multivariable regression modeling was used to assess outcomes.

EXPOSURES

Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of the study was the trend in use of robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. The secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, based on the Clavien classification system, and defined as any complication (Clavien grades 1-5) or major complications (Clavien grades 3-5, for which grade 5 results in death); resource use (operating time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay); and direct hospital cost.

RESULTS

Among 23 753 patients included in the study (mean age, 61.4 years; men, 13 792 [58.1%]), 18 573 underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and 5180 underwent robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. Use of robotic-assisted surgery increased from 1.5% (39 of 2676 radical nephrectomy procedures in 2003) to 27.0% (862 of 3194 radical nephrectomy procedures) in 2015 (P for trend <.001). In the weighted-adjusted analysis, there were no significant differences between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in the incidence of any (Clavien grades 1-5) postoperative complications (adjusted rates, 22.2% vs 23.4%, difference, -1.2%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 3.0%) or major (Clavien grades 3-5) complications (adjusted rates, 3.5% vs 3.8%, difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 0.5%). The rate of prolonged operating time (>4 hours) for patients undergoing the robotic-assisted procedure was higher than for patients receiving the laparoscopic procedure in the adjusted analysis (46.3% vs 25.8%; risk difference, 20.5%; 95% CI, 14.2% to 26.8%). Robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with higher mean 90-day direct hospital costs ($19 530 vs $16 851; difference, $2678; 95% CI, $838 to $4519), mainly accounted for operating room ($7217 vs $5378; difference, $1839; 95% CI, $1050 to $2628) and supply costs ($4876 vs $3891; difference, $985; 95% CI, $473 to $1498).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal mass between 2003 and 2015, the use of robotic-assisted surgery increased substantially. The use of robotic-assistance was not associated with increased risk of any or major complications but was associated with prolonged operating time and higher hospital costs compared with laparoscopic surgery.

Patient Function and the Value of Surgical Care for Kidney Cancer

PURPOSE

Frailty and functional status have emerged as significant predictors of morbidity and mortality for patients undergoing cancer surgery. To articulate the impact on value (ie quality per cost), we compared perioperative outcomes and expenditures according to patient function for older adults undergoing kidney cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using linked SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare data, we identified 19,129 elderly patients with kidney cancer treated with nonablative surgery from 2000 to 2009. We quantified patient function using function related indicators (claims indicative of dysfunction and disability) and measured 30-day morbidity, mortality, resource use and cost. Using multivariable, mixed effects models to adjust for patient and hospital characteristics, we estimated the relationship of patient functionality with both treatment outcomes and expenditures.

RESULTS

Of 19,129 patients we identified 5,509 (28.8%) and 3,127 (16.4%) with a function related indicator count of 1 and 2 or greater, respectively. While surgical complications did not vary (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.05), patients with 2 or more indicators more often experienced a medical event (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36) or a geriatric event (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.33-1.81), or died within 30 days of surgery (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.10-1.86) compared with patients with no baseline dysfunction. These patients utilized significantly more medical resources and amassed higher acute care expenditures (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

During kidney cancer surgery, patients in poor functional health can face a more eventful medical recovery at elevated cost, indicating lower value care. Greater consideration of frailty and functional status during treatment planning and transitions may represent areas for value enhancement in kidney cancer and urology care.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Live Kidney Donors: Techniques and Challenges

Live kidney donation is assuming an increasingly prominent role in kidney transplantation programs. The traditional operative approach has been through an incision in the upper quadrant of the abdomen or in the loin, with the attendant potential postoperative complications associated with a large surgical wound. These problems may act as disincentives to prospective donors. The introduction of laparoscopic donor surgery in 1995 heralded a new era offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic result. It is hoped that these benefits may counter some disincentives and thereby increase donation rates. Three minimal-access approaches and their advantages and disadvantages are described: classical laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and retroperitoneoscopic surgery. Published reports indicate extensive experience with the first 2 of these approaches and less experience with the latter. All 3 approaches present technical, physiological, and anatomical challenges in the context of retrieving an organ that is fit for transplantation. For minimal-access surgery to be accepted as the procedure of choice for live kidney donors, it must be demonstrated that morbidity is not transferred from donor to recipient when these techniques are used. Some concerns about these procedures are addressed. High-level evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials is generally lacking, but experiences of surgeons and patients suggest that, with appropriate modifications, these techniques are safe for both donors and allografts and also benefit donors' recovery.

'Because you can't live on love': living kidney donors' perspectives on compensation and payment for organ donation

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Living kidney donation accounts for approximately half of all kidney transplantation in many countries and is central to health policy focused on increasing organ supply. However, little examination of the economic consequences of living kidney donation has been undertaken from the perspective of donors themselves. This article documents living kidney donors' views regarding recompense and payment for organ donation, based on their experience.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five living kidney donors from New Zealand participated in this study.

METHODS

This qualitative study, based on thematic analysis, uses semi-structured in-depth interviews to examine the experiences of living kidney donors. Themes were organized around altruism and the 'gift', perceptions of shared corporeality and identity, and donor support.

RESULTS

Most participants agreed the donation process was costly in terms of time and money. Many incurred personal costs, and some experienced financial hardship. All the participants viewed financial hardship as a barrier to organ donation and favoured recompense for direct and indirect costs. Most did not support payment for organs, and none supported commercialization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that framing organ donation as a 'gift' can stymie discussion about reciprocity, remuneration and exchange, making talk about financial recompense difficult. Financial well-being, nonetheless, has implications for the ability to care for self and others post-operatively. We conclude that the economic consequences for living kidney donors in jurisdictions where recompense for direct and indirect costs is insufficient are unfair. Review of financial assistance for live organ donors is therefore recommended.

Percutaneous Cryoablation vs Partial Nephrectomy: Cost Comparison of T1a Tumors

PURPOSE

To compare cost of percutaneous cryoablation vs open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy of T1a renal masses from the hospital perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively compared cost, clinical and tumor data of 37 percutaneous cryoablations to 26 open and 102 robot-assisted partial nephrectomies. Total cost was the sum of direct and indirect cost of procedural and periprocedural variables. Clinical data included demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), hospitalization time, complication rate, ICU admission rate, and 30-day readmission rates. Tumor data included size, RENAL nephrometry score, and malignancy rate. Student's t-test was used for continuous variables and Fisher's exact or chi-square tests for categorical data.

RESULTS

Mean total cost was lower for percutaneous cryoablation than open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: $6067 vs $11392 or $11830 (p<0.0001) with lower cost of procedure room: $1516 vs $3272 or $3254 (p<0.0001), room and board: $95 vs $1907 or $1106 (p<0.0001), anesthesia: $684 vs $1223 or $1468 (p<0.0001), and laboratory/pathology fees: $205 vs $804 or $720 (p<0.0001). Supply and device cost was higher than open: $2596 vs $1352 (p<0.0001), but lower than robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: $3207 (p=0.002). Mean hospitalization times were lower for percutaneous cryoablation (p<0.0001), while age and CCI were higher (p<0.0001). No differences in tumor size, nephrometry score, malignancy rate complication, ICU, or 30-day readmission rates were observed.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous cryoablation can be performed at significantly lower cost than open and robotic partial nephrectomies for similar masses.

Reducing Operating Room Costs Through Real-Time Cost Information Feedback: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To create a protocol for providing real-time operating room (OR) cost feedback to surgeons. We hypothesize that this protocol will reduce costs in a responsible way without sacrificing quality of care.

METHODS

All OR costs were obtained and recorded for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Before the beginning of this project, costs pertaining to the 20 most recent cases were analyzed. Items were identified from previous cases as modifiable for replacement or omission. Timely feedback of total OR costs and cost of each item used was provided to the surgeon after each case, and costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

A cost analysis of the robot-assisted partial nephrectomy before the washout period indicates expenditures of $5243.04 per case. Ten recommended modifiable items were found to have an average per case cost of $1229.33 representing 23.4% of the total cost. A postwashout period cost analysis found the total OR cost decreased by $899.67 (17.2%) because of changes directly related to the modifiable items. Therefore, 73.2% of the possible identified savings was realized. The same stepwise approach was applied to laparoscopic donor nephrectomies. The average total cost per case before the washout period was $3530.05 with $457.54 attributed to modifiable items. After the washout period, modifiable items costs were reduced by $289.73 (8.0%). No complications occurred in the donor nephrectomy cases while one postoperative complication occurred in the partial nephrectomy group.

CONCLUSION

Providing surgeons with feedback related to OR costs may lead to a change in surgeon behavior and decreased overall costs. Further studies are needed to show equivalence in patient outcomes.

Does robotic assistance confer an economic benefit during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy?

PURPOSE

While robotic assisted radical nephrectomy is safe with outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of the pure laparoscopic approach, there is little evidence of an economic or clinical benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database we identified patients 18 years old or older who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary renal malignancy. Robotic assisted and laparoscopic techniques were noted. Patients treated with the open technique and those with evidence of metastatic disease were excluded from analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests, and the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression was done to examine factors associated with increased hospital costs and charges.

RESULTS

We identified 24,312 radical nephrectomy cases for study inclusion, of which 7,787 (32%) were performed robotically. There was no demographic difference between robotic assisted and pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases. Median total charges were $47,036 vs $38,068 for robotic assisted vs laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). Median total hospital costs for robotic assisted surgery were $15,149 compared to $11,735 for laparoscopic surgery (p <0.001). There was no difference in perioperative complications or the incidence of death. Compared to the laparoscopic approach robotic assistance conferred an estimated $4,565 and $11,267 increase in hospital costs and charges, respectively, when adjusted for adapted Charlson comorbidity index score, perioperative complications and length of stay (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic assisted radical nephrectomy results in increased medical expense without improving patient morbidity. Assuming surgeon proficiency with pure laparoscopy, robotic technology should be reserved primarily for complex surgeries requiring reconstruction. Traditional laparoscopic techniques should continue to be used for routine radical nephrectomy.

Comparison of the complications and the cost of open and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in renal tumors larger than 7 centimeters

PURPOSE

To compare the complications and the cost analysis of open radical nephrectomy (ORN) versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) in patients with renal tumors larger than 7 centimeters (cm).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed in 173 patients (ORN group, n = 140; LRN group, n = 33) who underwent surgery for kidney tumors between 2008 and 2011. Patients' age, tumor size, pre-operative surgical risk score (American Society of Anesthesiologists score), duration of hospitalization, complications and the costs of hospitalization were recorded. The complications in ORN group and LRN group were specified with Modified Clavien System in five grades.

RESULTS

The mean age was found 58.52 ± 13.74 years in ORN group, and 58.15 ± 12.81 years in LRN group (P = .847). Post-operative pain necessitating analgesics was observed in all patients (100%) after early post-operative period in both groups (Grade 1 complications). Blood transfusions were required in 51 patients (36.42%) in the ORN group, and 7 (21.21%) patients in the LRN group (Grade 2 complications) (P = .185). Grade 3 complication was not observed in each groups. Grade 4 complications were occurred in 6 (4.28%) patients [aortic injury, acute tubular necrosis, the need for dialysis, respiratory arrest (2), atrial fibrillation] in the ORN group, and in 1 (3.03%) patient (pulmonary embolism) in the LRN group. Grade 5 complication was occurred in 1 (0.71%) patient (death) in the ORN group. By the cost analysis, the average cost of ORN group was €1328, whereas €1508 in LRN group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is used in many clinics with an increasing frequency because of the improved patient comfort, better cosmetic results, less post-operative pain, lower transfusion rates, and early return to the daily activities. Besides these advantages, the negligible difference in the costs compared to the open surgery (mean difference = €180 per case) makes it even more attractive.

Cost of care for malignant and benign renal masses

BACKGROUND

Limitations of current diagnotic techniques may allow some patients with presumed renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to undergo nephrectomy without definitive confirmation of malignancy.

OBJECTIVES

To confirm previous estimates of postnephrectomy renal mass diagnosis and to assess the economic impact of nephrectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis identified commercial enrollees who underwent nephrectomy with a diagnosis of RCC between July 1, 2000, and March 30, 2008. Study subjects were stratified based on medical claims for benign or malignant disease after the nephrectomy date. Cohorts were compared on resource utilization before and after nephrectomy, occurrence of postsurgical complications, and associated 1-year costs of care.

RESULTS

Of 10,404 patients undergoing nephrectomy for presumed RCC, 1613 (15.5%) were subsequently identified as having benign disease, despite median presurgical diagnostic expenditures of $1311 per patient (interquartile range [IQR], $467-$2606). Median expenditures for the 12 months postnephrectomy were $26,920 per patient (IQR, $16,851-$46,982) for those with malignant disease and $23,951 per patient (IQR, $14,873-$38,190) for those with benign disease (P<.0001). For patients with benign disease, 17.5% experienced a postsurgical adverse event, resulting in a 1.5-fold increase in expenditures (median $31,838 per patient for those with event vs $22,770 per patient for those without event; P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, approximately 1 in 6 patients were found to have a benign renal mass postnephrectomy. Given the risk of surgical complications and related economic consequences, methods for better identifying malignant versus benign disease prior to surgery could provide significant benefits to patients and payers.

Is laparoscopic partial nephrectomy already the gold standard for small renal masses?

OBJECTIVES

To examine the role of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in the management of small renal masses.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (through March 2012) using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Search Library (though March 2012), and Web of Science (through March 2012). We retrieved citations using the text terms "small renal mass," "laparoscopic," "partial nephrectomy,"and "radical nephrectomy." We limited the search to articles in the English language, to T1a renal tumors, and expanded the search using the related articles function. We also performed hand searches of references identified in electronically abstracted articles.

RESULTS

There is a paucity of well conducted clinical trials to elucidate laparoscopic partial nephrectomy's role. A number of assumptions had to be made to complete the review. Other than possibly less operative blood loss, less operative time, less inpatient stay time, and less cost, there was insufficient evidence to support laparoscopic partial nephrectomy over other modalities. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy appears to have a higher rate of radical nephrectomy conversion.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to clearly state that laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is the gold standard in the management of small renal masses. If this skill is part of a surgeon's armamentarium, it is certainly not inferior to other modalities, and may offer some benefit to patients.

Open partial nephrectomy for complex tumours and >4 cm: Is it still the gold standard technique in the minimally invasive era?

The objective of this paper is to discuss the role of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for complex renal tumours and large renal tumours > 4 cm in the minimally invasive era. The current status of OPN, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robotic PN are reviewed. The literature search is done using the National Library of Medicine database (PubMed). The indication of OPN has been extended to T1b tumours (4-7 cm). PN and radical nephrectomy (RN) provide equivalent oncological outcomes for these tumours. In addition, there is a growing application of OPN for complex tumours (centrally located, hilar, multifocal). Despite the more challenging cohort of patients, there is no increase in the overall morbidity of OPN. In contemporary cohorts there is an increase in overweight patients and a higher incidence of central tumours treated with OPN. LPN has been extended to select patients with larger renal masses (4-7 cm) and centrally located tumours. LPN for tumours > 4 cm was in the early phase associated with increased complication rate and prolonged warm ischemia time (WIT). Complication rates decreased with improvement of surgical technique and expertise. Early experience with robotic PN is promising and perioperative outcomes are at least comparable to LPN. LPN and robotic PN have to compete with the functional and oncological results of OPN. In the era of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), OPN remains the established standard for the management of T1 renal tumours in centres without advanced laparoscopic expertise. Complex scenarios with centrally located tumours, tumours in a solitary kidney, and multifocal lesions probably are best managed with OPN. LPN is feasible in numerous clinical scenarios in centres with advanced laparoscopic expertise but remains a challenging operation. Long-term studies are needed to further define the role of the robotic approach for PN.

'It's a regional thing': financial impact of renal transplantation on live donors

INTRODUCTION

There has been no research exploring the financial impact on the live renal donor in terms of testing, hospitalisation and surgery for kidney removal (known as nephrectomy). The only mention of financial issues in relation to live renal transplantation is the recipients' concerns in relation to monetary payment for the gift of a kidney and the recipients' desire to pay for the costs associated with the nephrectomy. The discussion in this article posits a new direction in live renal donor research; that of understanding the financial impact of live renal donation on the donor to inform health policy and supportive care service delivery. The findings have specific relevance for live renal donors living in rural and remote locations of Australia.

METHODS

The findings are presented from the first interview (time 1: T1) of a set of four times (time 1 to time 4: T1-T4) from a longitudinal study that explored the experience of live renal donors who were undergoing kidney removal (nephrectomy) at the Renal Transplantation Unit at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. A qualitative methodological approach was used that involved semi-structured interviews with prospective living kidney donors (n=20). The resulting data were analysed using the qualitative research methods of coding and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that live renal donors in non-metropolitan areas report significant financial concerns in relation to testing, hospitalisation and surgery for nephrectomy. These include the fact that bulk billing (no cost to the patient for practitioner's service) is not always available, that individuals have to pay up-front and that free testing at local public hospitals is not available in some areas. In addition, non-metropolitan donors have to fund the extra cost of travel and accommodation when relocating for the nephrectomy to the specialist metropolitan hospital.

CONCLUSION

Live renal transplantation is an important new direction in medical care that has excellent long-term results for individuals diagnosed with end-stage renal disease. An essential element of the transplantation procedure is the voluntary donation of a healthy kidney by the live renal donor. Such an altruistic gift, which has no personal health benefit for the donor, is to be applauded and supported. The present research demonstrates that for some donors, particularly those living outside the metropolitan area, the gift may also include a range of financial costs to the donor. There is no prior research available on the financial impact of live renal donation for individuals living in non-metropolitan areas. Thus, this article is a seminal work in the area. The findings affirm 'rural disadvantage' by demonstrating that it is the live renal donors in non-metropolitan areas who are reporting financial concerns in relation to testing, hospitalisation and surgery for nephrectomy. It is the hope and expectation that the reporting on these costs will encourage further work in this area and the findings will be used for health policy and service delivery considerations.

Is there a financial disincentive to perform partial nephrectomy?

PURPOSE

Despite the explicit endorsement of the American Urological Association guidelines of partial nephrectomy as the treatment of choice for T1a renal cell carcinoma, a considerable underuse of nephron sparing surgery characterizes general practice patterns in the United States. We explored possible financial disincentives associated with partial nephrectomy that may contribute to this important quality of care deficit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed® query on perioperative outcomes identified 10 series on open or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and 16 on open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Mean operative time and hospital length of stay were calculated for each group. Using these data in conjunction with Health Care Financing Administration data on physician work time, which guides the current Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Medicare fee schedule, we calculated global physician time expenditure and hourly Medicare reimbursement rates for each of these 5 surgical services.

RESULTS

Mean±SD operative time for open and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy was 180.7±24.7 minutes (95% CI 119.3-242.0) in 3 studies, 178.8±16.5 (95% CI 163.5-194.1) in 7, 226.0±36.9 (95% CI 187.2-264.8) in 6, 227.9±40.2 (95% CI 185.8-270.1) in 6 and 227.9±37.8 (95% CI 167.7-288.1) in 4, respectively (p=0.028). Mean length of stay (days) after open and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy was 5.8±0.7 days (95% CI 4.0-7.7) in 3 studies, 2.5±1.1 (95% CI 1.4-3.6) in 6, 5.8±0.4 (95% CI 5.3-6.2) in 5, 2.9±0.3 (95% CI 2.6-3.3) in 6 and 2.8±1.0 (95% CI 1.2-4.4) in 4, respectively (p<0.001). The hourly reimbursement rate was calculated at $200.61, $242.03, $185.66, $231.27 and $231.97 for open and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, respectively. Hence, open partial nephrectomy emerged as the lowest paying of these procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior compensation for open partial nephrectomy relative to that of laparoscopic or open radical nephrectomy may impede the dissemination of nephron sparing surgery for small renal masses. This may occur particularly in a general practice setting, where the expertise required for laparoscopic or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy may be lacking. We propose rectifying this inequity to facilitate wider use of nephron sparing surgery in the clinically appropriate setting.

Cost comparison of nephron-sparing treatments for cT1a renal masses

OBJECTIVES

Treatment options for small renal tumors have evolved from radical nephrectomy (RN) to partial nephrectomy (PN), thermal ablation, or active surveillance. With the advancement of techniques, costs differences are unclear. The objective of this study is to compare the 6-month costs associated with nephron-sparing procedures for cT1a renal tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a review of patients diagnosed with a solitary cT1a renal mass who underwent surgical treatment from June 2008 to May 2011. Open partial nephrectomy (OPN), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RLPN), laparoscopic radio-frequency ablation (LRFA), or computed tomography guided radio frequency ablation (CTRFA) was performed on 173 patients. Cost data were collected for surgical costs, associated hospital stay, and the 6-month postoperative period.

RESULTS

Patients underwent surgery, including 52 OPN, 48 RLPN, 44 LRFA, and 29 CTRFA. Median total costs associated were $17,018, $20,314, $13,965, and $6,475, for OPN, RLPN, LRFA, and CTRFA, respectively. When stratified by approach differences were noted for total cost (P < 0.001), operating room (OR) time (P < 0.001), surgical supply (P < 0.001), and room and board (P < 0.001) in univariable analysis. Multivariable linear regression (R(2) = 0.966) showed surgical approach (P = 0.007), length of stay (P < 0.001), and OR time (P < 0.001) to be significant predictors of total cost. However, tumor size (P = 0.175), and Charlson comorbidity index (P = 0.078) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Six-month cost of nephron-sparing surgery is lowest with radio frequency ablation (RFA) by either laparoscopic or computed tomography (CT)-guided approach compared to RLPN and OPN. As oncologic and safety outcomes improve and become comparable in all nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) approaches, cost of each procedure will start to play a stronger role in the clinical and healthcare policy setting.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus standard laparoscopic simple nephrectomy: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), an attempt to further enhance the cosmetic benefits of minimally invasive surgery while minimizing the potential morbidity associated with multiple incisions, has been developed recently. Our aim was to compare LESS simple nephrectomy (LESS-SN) and conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic simple nephrectomy (CTL-SN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomized study that was conducted between December 2008 and September 2009, 27 patients who needed simple nephrectomy were randomized to either LESS-SN or CTL-SN. All procedures in both groups were performed by the first author, who is experienced in laparoscopic surgery. Patient characteristics, perioperative details, and time to return to work were recorded. Postoperative evaluation of pain and use of analgesic medication were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no difference in median operative time (117.5 vs 114 min, P = 0.52), blood loss (50.71 vs 47.15 mL, P = 0.60), transfusion rates (0% for both), and hospitalization time (2.07 vs 2.11 days, P = 0.74) between the LESS-SN and CTL-SN groups. Time to return to normal activities was shorter in the LESS-SN group compared with the CTL-SN group (10.7 vs 13.5 days, P = 0.001). Both the visual analogue scale and the postoperative use of analgesics were significantly lower during postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 in patients who underwent LESS-SN, compared with patients who underwent CTL-SN. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications in both groups. Compared with CTL-SN, LESS-SN was more expensive, but all patients undergoing LESS-SN were very pleased with the cosmetic outcome (no visible scars).

CONCLUSION

The early experience described in this study suggests that LESS-SN is a safe and effective alternative to CTL-SN that provides surgeons with a minimally invasive surgical option and the ability to hide the surgical incision within the umbilicus; however, a larger series is necessary to confirm these findings and to determine if there are any benefits in pain, recovery, or cosmesis.

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: how far have we gone?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several technical modifications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy have resulted in a reduction of complications and warm ischemia time. The most recent results are reviewed with a focus on oncologic outcome and postoperative renal function.

RECENT FINDINGS

The indications for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy are the same as for open surgery. All tumors up to 4 cm should be included and selected tumors up to 7 cm may be considered as well. In experienced hands, the complication rate is considerably low. Oncologic outcome is comparable with open partial nephrectomy and 5-year survival data have been published recently. Long warm ischemia time may be of some concern. The published functional results are excellent. Cost should not be the main argument in favor of a method. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, however, combines advantages for the patient with lower cost as shown by two studies.

SUMMARY

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy duplicates the principles of open surgery and has been standardized to a great extent. It is technically difficult and is being performed by a small number of centers only; however, the interest of the urologists and patient demand is growing quickly. At the present time, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cannot be considered a standard of care, but excellent results have been reported when performed by experienced laparoscopists.

Financial Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Nephrectomy in the Pediatric Age Group

The authors compared the cost of laparoscopic nephrectomy to open nephrectomy in the pediatric age group. One hundred seventeen consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed by a surgeon with extensive experience with this approach between April 2003 and August 2006 were included. A control group of 24 consecutive open nephrectomies performed by urologists who do not use the laparoscopic approach were also included. Inclusion criteria for surgery were a poor or nonfunctioning kidney related to severe obstructive or refluxing nephropathy and a multicystic dysplastic kidney. The length of operation, length of stay, and disposable equipment used were recorded and the different approaches were compared statistically with an unpaired t test. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of the procedure was 79 minutes (32) in the laparoscopic group and 85 minutes (35) in the control group (P = 0.41). The mean (SD) cost of the disposable instruments used during the operation was pounds sterling274 (160) in the laparoscopic group and pounds sterling20 (5) in the control group (P = 0.0001). The mean (SD) hospital stay was 1 night (0.43) with a mean (SD) cost of pounds sterling677 (291) in the laparoscopic group, and 3 nights (2) with a mean (SD) cost of pounds sterling2031 (1354) in the control group (P = 0.0001). The mean (SD) total cost of the procedure was pounds sterling951 (451) for the laparoscopic group and pounds sterling2051 (1359) for the open one (P = 0.0001). In our experience, the laparoscopic approach in the pediatric age group is 54% less expensive than the open approach.

Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness remains an issue surrounding the introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN).

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial the cost-effectiveness of LDN versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN) was determined. Fifty donors were included in each group. All in-hospital costs were documented. Postoperatively, case record forms were sent to the donors during 1-year follow-up to record return-to-work and societal costs. To offset costs against quality of life, the Euroqol-5D questionnaire was administered preoperatively and 3, 7, 14, 28, 90, 180, and 365 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Mean total costs were euro6,090 (US$7,308) after LDN and euro4,818 ($5,782) after ODN (P<0.001). Disposables influenced the cost difference most. Mean productivity loss was 68 and 75 days after LDN and ODN respectively, corresponding to euro783 ($940) gained per donor after LDN. The main gain in quality of life in the LDN group was realized within 4 weeks postoperatively. LDN resulted in a mean gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years at mean costs of euro1,271 ($1,525) and euro488 ($586) from a healthcare perspective and a societal perspective, respectively. This implies that one additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year after LDN costs about euro16,000 ($19,200) from a societal point of view and about euro41,000 ($49,200) from a health-care perspective. Activities other than work were resumed significantly earlier after LDN (66 vs. 91 days, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In addition to a clinically relevant donor-experienced benefit from LDN, this technique appeared, given a societal perspective, a cost-efficient procedure mainly due to less productivity losses.

Cost Analysis of Minimally Invasive Surgery in a Pediatric Setting

AIMS

The aims of this study was to determine whether an active policy of cost curtailment would impact on the theater cost of laparoscopic surgery in a pediatric setting; to document the extent of cost changes over time and to identify factors that adversely influence expenditure; and to investigate whether the surgeon is a significant factor in the price of the procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective audit of laparoscopic procedures was performed in a single unit over a 36-month period. Detailed costs of theater inventory for all procedures were compiled on a case-by-case basis and recorded on a database. The cost of six index procedures were collated and changes over the period of the study analyzed. The factors responsible for increased expenditure were flagged and appraised to enable the implementation of cost-saving measures. The prices of the laparoscopic equipment were based on invoiced figures provided by hospital managers, and no long-term outcome measures were taken into account.

RESULTS

A total of 179 cases were performed by six surgeons over a 3-year period between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005, with no adverse intraoperative events. The procedures studied in further detail were appendicectomy (n = 50), fundoplication (n = 25), cholecystectomy (n = 12), nephrectomy (n = 10), Fowler Stevens for undescended testes (n = 10), and modified Palomo operations for varicocoele (n = 7). The mean cost of these procedures fell year by year over the period of study but was significant only in appendicectomy (P = 0.017). For this procedure, there was a significant difference in costs between the various surgeons (P = 0.007), but this trend was not noted with the other procedures. There were no major intraoperative events, although 2 patients required conversion owing to technical difficulties posed by the cases. Among the factors that influenced costs were the use of disposables, particularly for hemostasis and suctioning, and an inability to procure reuseable instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of commonly performed laparoscopic procedures are falling year by year. The surgeon is a factor in the costs of some procedures. A cost-saving strategy has not been compromised of patient safety; however, some cost-saving measures, though attractive, are labor intensive and are not practical. An overall commitment to the sensible use of health care resources translates into savings for hospitals, thereby strengthening the case for laparoscopic surgery.

[Opened vs. laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in renal adenocarcinoma cost comparison]

PURPOSE

To undertake a cost comparison (cost minimization) between transperitoneal laparoscopic and opened nephrectomy in renal adenocarcinoma treatment.

METHOD

Retrospective study on the first 26 patients submitted to LN without intra or postoperative complications in the period 2002-2003, using as control 22 patients treated with ON with the same characteristics and in the same period. Demographic variables were evaluated (age, sex, tumor size, etc.), intraoperative (operative time and fungible material used) and postoperative (length of stay in Postanaesthesic Care Unit, Acute Pain Unit needs and hospital stay). Our Hospital costs plus those imputed during year 2003 to the Urology Service, as well as the cost of fungible material for the same year were applied, carrying out a comparison of costs between both groups.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the demographic variables between both groups except in the tumor, bigger size in the opened nephrectomy (p=0,001). Transperitoneal laparoscopic was 29,4% globally more expensive than opened nephrectomy. The transperitoneal laparoscopic intraoperative cost (operating room, anesthesia and fungibles) the exceeded in 151,6% to that of the opened nephrectomy, whereas in the opened nephrectomy the postoperative cost was a 63 % higher than in the transperitoneal laparoscopic cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Transperitoneal laparoscopic in our Center is more expensive than opened nephrectomy due to a major occupation of operating room and that the specific fungible material used at the surgical act has a very high cost. It would be necessary to drastically reduce surgical time and decrease fungible material expenses, thus transperitoneal laparoscopic procedure could be competitive in our Hospital.

Comparative Financial Analysis of Minimally Invasive Surgery to Open Surgery for Small Renal Tumours ≤3.5cm: A Single Institutional Experience

OBJECTIVE

We analysed total hospital costs by comparing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures, such as laparoscopic cryoablation (LCA), laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN), with conventional surgery.

METHODS

Between March 2000 and July 2005, 184 consecutive patients underwent surgery for a small, organ-confined renal tumour < or =3.5 cm in diameter. The distribution of patients among the surgical procedures was: HALN (n=53); LPN (n=20); open radical nephrectomy (ORN; n=20); open partial nephrectomy (OPN; n=71); and LCA (n=20). Total hospital costs were analysed for each procedure.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing OPN at a mean age of 58+/-13 yr were significantly younger those undergoing HALN, ORN, and LCA. The mean hospital length of stay in the LCA group (2.0+/-1.2 d) was shorter than all other groups (p<0.05). Higher surgical costs occurred with LCA, LPN, and HALN compared (p<0.05) with ORN and OPN. However, total financial costs were lower for LCA and HALN with more obvious differences between LCA and the other four groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of MIS remain competitive with traditional surgery. Although the surgical costs were higher, LCA had the lowest total hospital costs for the renal tumour < or =3.5 cm at our institution. Long-term oncologic efficacy studies will be needed to fully appreciate the cost-efficacy ratio of MIS.

Cost analysis of open, laparoscopic, and percutaneous treatment options for nephron-sparing surgery

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES

A variety of nephron-sparing options exist for the management of small renal masses. The perioperative cost of open (OPN) and laparoscopic (LPN) partial nephrectomy, laparoscopic (LCA), and CT-guided percutaneous (PCA) cryoablation was compared using a detailed computer model.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The model incorporates operative time, consumables, anesthesia, CT usage, percutaneous biopsy, hospitalization, and transfusion expenses. Starting values were derived from a retrospective review of 317 patients treated at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions within the past 7 years. Hypothesis testing was performed with sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The PCA was 2.2 to 2.7 times less costly than the other options and resulted in a cost savings of $3625 to $5155 per case. For OPN, LPN, and LCA, the operative time and hospitalization accounted for 69% to 91% of the cost. In contrast, cryoprobe consumables were responsible for >70% of total cost of PCA. An OPN was 1.2x as costly as LPN and could achieve cost equivalence only with operative times of <2.8 hours or hospitalization of <3 days. An LCA was more costly than all forms of extirpative surgery if more than two cryoprobes were used. Reusing cryoprobes during LCA was always a less-costly option than adding a second cryoprobe to the procedure. The LCA was no longer cost advantageous over OPN if more than four CT scans were obtained during the first postoperative year or if local recurrence rates exceeded 23%.

CONCLUSIONS

This model defines and simplifies a series of complex cost relations between the options for nephron-sparing surgery.

Clinical research of renal vein control using Hem-o-lok clips in laparoscopic nephrectomy

Control of the renal vein represents a crucial step in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Although endovascular gastrointestinal anastomosis (GIA) staplers have generally been used for renal vein control because of the large diameter of the vessel, Hem-o-lok clips have recently been used for renal artery control. GIA staplers are expensive and can malfunction on rare occasions, resulting in severe complications. We evaluated renal vein control using Hem-o-lok clips (adaptive vascular width 7-16 mm) in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Since April 2004, we have ligated renal arteries using Hem-o-lok clips. From June 2004, this method was applied for renal vein control in 40 laparoscopic nephrectomies. After renal pedicle dissection, renal pedicle ligation was accomplished using extra large (XL) Hem-o-lok clips on both the renal arteries and veins by placing two clips on the patient side and one clip on the specimen side. Ligation times for obtaining renal vein control were compared between XL Hem-o-lok clips and GIA staplers in 40 cases before June 2004. Vascular control using XL Hem-o-lok clips was successful in all 40 cases, without any slipping of clips or uncontrolled bleeding. After renal pedicle dissection, ligation time for achieving renal vein control was 167.0 +/- 48 s (range: 122-295 s) using XL Hem-o-lok clips (mean, three clips) and 68 +/- 24.0 s (range: 54-150 s) using a GIA stapler. XL Hem-o-lok clips allow safe and reliable control of renal veins in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Ligation time is only 100 s longer than using a GIA stapler. In addition, costs are reduced by more than 90% compared to GIA stapling.

Cost Trends for Oncological Renal Surgery: Support for a Laparoscopic Standard of Care

PURPOSE

There may be inherent costs associated with the cultivation of laparoscopic expertise. We compared the cost trends for laparoscopy during the development of our program with that of open surgery for renal neoplasms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 381 patients treated surgically for renal cortical neoplasms from 1998 to 2003. Demographic information and cancer specific data were recorded on each subject. Direct variable costs, which are directly traceable to the patient care service provided and vary with patient volume, were used to analyze cost. Temporal trends were assessed using multivariate models developed to determine smoothed mean costs by year.

RESULTS

Although it was initially more expensive, by 2003 mean costs were lower for laparoscopic than for open radical nephrectomy ($5,157 vs $5,808). This reflected a significantly lower annual increase in direct variable costs for laparoscopy vs open surgery even after adjustment for patient age, sex, race and clinical stage (p = 0.013). Although a similar trend was observed when comparing nephron sparing procedures vs open surgery, this did not attain statistical significance. In addition to surgical technique, only higher clinical stage was independently associated with increased direct variable costs after adjustment for operative year (p <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to their open counterparts the costs of laparoscopic treatment of renal cortical neoplasms have increased at a lower rate in the last 6 years. When considered in the context of the well established benefits of laparoscopy, our findings lend additional support in favor of laparoscopy as the standard of care.

Cost Containment in Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy: Feasibility and Advantages over Open Radical Nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To highlight the impact of the laparoscopic experience of the surgical team on achievement of satisfactory results with cost containment in performing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared the cost components of 15 consecutive uncomplicated LRNs performed in 2001 (LRN01) with 15 consecutive uncomplicated laparoscopic radical nephrectomies performed in 2003 (LRN03) and with 15 consecutive uncomplicated procedures performed at our institution by the same surgical team in the year 1999 matched for patient age, tumor size, and disease stage. The groups were comparable in demographics.

RESULTS

The operative times were 250, 225, and 195 minutes in the LRN01, LRN03, and open-surgery groups, respectively, while the lengths of postoperative stay were 3.8, 3.1, and 6.5 days. Operating room costs, excluding the disposable instruments, were 11.00 /min for the open surgery and 10.00 /min for laparoscopic nephrectomy, and the cost of the postoperative stay was 300 to 310 per day. The cost of disposable instruments was 952.18 for LRN01 and 146.37 for LRN03. The overall costs were 4155.00 for the open-surgery group, 4672.00 for LRN01, and 3336.37 for LRN03.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost containment in laparoscopic nephrectomy is possible. A proper team learning curve and the employment of reliable reusable instruments is the key to reducing costs, making this procedure as economically advantageous as the equivalent open procedure.

A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

Compare two different techniques for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), related to the operative costs and learning curve.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April/2000 and October/2003, 61 patients were submitted to LDN in 2 different reference centers in kidney transplantation. At center A (CA), 11 patients were operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, using Hem-O-Lok clips for the renal pedicle control and the specimens were retrieved manually, without using endobags. At center B (CB), 50 patients were also operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, but the renal pedicles were controlled with endo-GIA appliers and the specimens were retrieved using endobags.

RESULTS

Operative time (231 +/- 39 min vs. 179 +/- 30 min; p < 0.000), warm ischemia time (5.85 +/- 2.85 min vs. 3.84 +/- 3.84 min; p = 0.002) and blood loss (214 +/- 98 mL vs. 141 +/- 82 mL; p = 0.02) were statistically better in CB, when compared to CA. Discharge time was similar in both centers. One major complication was observed in both centers, leading to an open conversion in CA (9.1%). One donor death occurred in CB (2%). Regarding the recipients, no statistical difference was observed in all parameters analyzed. There was an economy of US$1.440 in each procedure performed in CA, when compared to CB.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the learning curve, the technique adopted by CA, showed no deleterious results to the donors and recipients when compared with the CB. On the other hand, this technique was cheaper than the technique performed in the CB, representing an attractive alternative for LDN, mainly in developing centers.

Outcome and cost analysis of laparoscopic or open surgery versus conservative management for multicystic dysplastic kidney

PURPOSE

To determine whether laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN), open nephrectomy (ON), or observation (OB) is most efficient for managing multicystic dysplastic kidney (MCDK).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the management of our 12-year clinical experience of 32 MCDK patients to analyze the estimated total cost (ETC) of various treatment options and compare them with respect to survival, development of hypertension, and postoperative cosmetic appearance, to determine the most efficient treatment option.

RESULTS

There were 12 cases in the LN group, 6 in the ON group, and 14 in the OB group. ETC was lower for ON than for LN. But the length of preoperative observation and length of follow-up after spontaneous regression greatly affected ETC. If MCDK cases were observed > 5 years with standard investigations performed regularly, ETC was higher for the OB group than for the LN group. In 6/14 (42.9%) of OB cases, MCDK resolved within 5 years, and this subgroup had the lowest ETC up to the time of this review. Six cases initially in the OB group were managed surgically (4 by LN and 2 by ON) in accordance with parental requests, and ETC in these cases was highest. All cases are well after a mean follow-up of 5.7 years, without any impairment of renal function, or hypertension.

CONCLUSION

The decision to operate after lengthy observation increases costs. Overall, the most efficient surgical technique for managing MCDK was LN because of greater patient satisfaction with postoperative cosmesis. We recommend MCDK be treated by LN after a short period of observation.

Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Medicolegal and Insurance Aspects

Kidney transplantation is quite a routine complex procedure, not without risks and consequences to the donor, the recipient, and the health care professionals. Kidney-related medical malpractice suits are growing rapidly, and for clinicians and surgeons, the risk of being sued can be only reduced by practicing high-quality medicine and by appropriately communicating with donors and recipients. Actually relevant guidelines are available including safety and quality assurance standards for procurements, preservation, processing, and distribution for organs to maximize their quality and thereby the rate of success of transplants and to minimize the risk of such a procedure. We also find it essential that practice of living donor kidney transplant is in line with the general rules of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and its Additional Protocol. In this article, financial incentives and insurance aspects related with living donors kidney transplants are also illustrated.

A cost comparison of nephron-sparing surgical techniques for renal tumour

OBJECTIVE

To compare costs associated with open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic PN (LPN) and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRF) in consecutive patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The charts and costs were reviewed for all 46 patients undergoing nephron-sparing PN at our institution from March 2003 to March 2004. Clinical characteristics, operative techniques, radiographic and pathological information were recorded. Detailed cost information for room and board, laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, operating room, surgical supplies, anaesthesia, recovery room, electrocardiography and respiratory services were obtained from our institution.

RESULTS

The hospital stay was significantly shorter for PRF (0.5 days) than either LPN (1.86) and OPN (4.94). PRF was statistically less costly than LPN and OPN, with mean (sd) costs of (US dollars) 4454 (938), 7013 (934) and 7767 (1605). There was no significant difference in cost between LPN and OPN. Surgical supply costs were significantly higher for LPN and PRF than OPN. LPN had less than a third of the room and board costs of OPN (P < 0.001). Decreases in room and board were also associated with lower pharmacy and laboratory costs.

CONCLUSIONS

PRF is significantly less costly than LPN and OPN; LPN is cost-equivalent to OPN as the shorter stay compensates for significantly higher surgical supply costs. In those patients with tumours of appropriate size and location, minimally invasive approaches can decrease the morbidity, with cost benefits.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy--an Iranian model for developing countries: a cost-effective no-rush approach

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate donor and graft outcome in kidney transplantations from laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2000 to June 2004, 341 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed. Demographics and hospital records were reviewed. Mean ages of donors and recipients were 27.59+/-4.80 years (range, 20-56 years) and 35.36+/-14.85 years (range, 3-75 years).

RESULTS

Nephrectomy was left sided in 96.2%. Mean follow-up was 13.32+/-35.98 months. Mean warm ischemia time was 8.17 minutes (range, 2.5-19 minutes). Mean operative time was 260.34 minutes. Median serum creatinine levels (mg/dL) of the recipients were 1.30, 1.45, and 1.20 at day 7, and at 1 and 12 months. One-year graft survival was 92.7%, 94.6%, and 92.6% in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy groups with warm ischemia times of less than 6, 6-10, and more than 10 minutes (P=NS). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 2.1% of donors, and reoperation was performed in 3.8% of laparoscopic donor nephrectomies. Blood transfusion was required in 7.1% of donors. Ureteral complications were observed in 2.1% of recipients. Vascular control was performed using medium-large clips instead of endo GIA, and the kidney was extracted via a suprapubic approach using the hand instead of an ENDOCATCH bag; hence, $600 was saved in each nephrectomy. No vascular accident occurred from pedicular vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be performed with a less-expensive setup (to be expanded in developing countries) without jeopardizing results. Because warm ischemic time in our study did not affect graft outcome significantly, there appears to be no need to rush harvesting the kidney to achieve a better quality kidney. Vascular control using nonautomatic clips instead of more costly endo GIA and hand extraction of the kidney is safe, practical, and economical.

The case for living kidney sales: rationale, objections and concerns

Currently, potential kidney transplant candidates are dying on the waiting list. One potential solution would be a regulated system of living kidney sales (with safeguards to protect the vendor). Potential objections and practical concerns are discussed.

Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare, retrospectively, the results of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) using a tumor size-matched cohort of patients. Limited data are available comparing LPN to OPN in the treatment of small renal tumors.

METHODS

Between September 2000 and September 2003, 27 LPNs and 22 OPNs were performed to treat renal masses less than 4 cm. Patient demographics and tumor location and size (2.4 +/- 1.0 cm versus 2.9 +/- 0.9 cm, respectively; P = not statistically significant) were similar between the LPN and OPN groups.

RESULTS

Although the mean operative time was longer in the LPN than in the OPN group (210 +/- 76 minutes versus 144 +/- 24 minutes; P <0.001), the blood loss was comparable between the two groups (250 +/- 250 mL versus 334 +/- 343 mL; P = not statistically significant). No blood transfusions were performed in either group. The hospital stay was significantly reduced after LPN compared with after OPN (2.9 +/- 1.5 days versus 6.4 +/- 1.8 days; P <0.0002), and the postoperative parenteral narcotic requirements were lower in the LPN group (mean morphine equivalent 43 +/- 62 mg versus 187 +/- 71 mg; P <0.02). Three complications occurred in each group. With LPN, no patient had positive margins or tumor recurrence. Also, direct financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital costs after LPN (4839 dollars+/- 1551 dollars versus 6297 dollars+/- 2972 dollars; P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LPN confers several benefits over OPN concerning patient convalescence and costs, despite prolonged resection times at our current phase of the learning curve. Long-term results on cancer control in patients treated with LPN continue to be assessed.

The Living Organ Donor Network: a model registry for living kidney donors

The South-Eastern Organ Procurement Foundation presents the first report on a programme to track donors through questionnaires completed at the time of donation, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly thereafter. Donors at participating centres were eligible for an insurance policy with a total benefit of 250,000 US dollars, covering accidental death related to donation, surgery, medical expenses of complications, and disability income. The four participating centres have registered 104 donors. Response rate to the questionnaires was 90.91%. The majority of the donors come from the immediate family (81.62%), either by blood or marriage. The majority of donors are employed full time, with income ranges similar to the national census. Donors rely on employer-provided vacation time and sick leave to recuperate, but the average donor required 12 days of unpaid leave before returning to work. Donors also experienced costs of transportation, lodging, and childcare. Anti-depressants were prescribed to 10.58% of donors, and 4.8% of donors reported they are treated for hypertension. Complications were reported by 37.5% of the donors, but only 7.6% of the complications were serious enough to require hospitalization or surgery. Donors reported higher complication rates than reported by the centres and experience financial burdens afterwards.