Patience is key: Association of surgical timing with clinical outcomes in elderly patients with sigmoid volvulus

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for sigmoid volvulus recommend endoscopy as a first line of treatment for decompression, followed by colectomy as early as possible. Timing of the latter varies greatly. This study compared early (≤2 days) versus delayed (>2 days) sigmoid colectomy.

METHODS

2016-2019 NRD database was queried to identify patients aged ≥65 years admitted for sigmoid volvulus who underwent sequential endoscopic decompression and sigmoid colectomy. Outcomes included mortality, complications, hospital length of stay, readmissions, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

842 patients were included, of which 409 (48.6 ​%) underwent delayed sigmoid colectomy. Delayed sigmoid colectomy was associated with reduced cardiac complications (1.1 ​% vs 0.0 ​%, p ​= ​0.045), reduced ostomy rate (38.3 ​% vs 29.4 ​%, p ​= ​0.013), an increased overall length of stay (12 days vs 8 days, p ​< ​0.001) and increased overall costs (27,764 dollar vs. 24,472 dollar, p ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSION

In geriatric patient with sigmoid volvulus, delayed surgical resection after decompression is associated with reduced cardiac complications and reduced ostomy rate, while increasing overall hospital length of stay and costs.

Same day discharge colon surgery: is it financially worth it?

AIM

Same day discharge (SDD) for colorectal surgery shows increasing promise in the era of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols and minimally invasive surgery. It has become increasingly relevant due to the constraints posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to compare SDD and postoperative day 1 (POD1) discharge to understand the clinical outcomes and financial impact on factors such as cost, charge, revenue, contribution margin and readmission.

METHOD

A retrospective review of colectomies was performed at a single institution over a 2-year period (n = 143). Two populations were identified: SDD (n = 51) and POD1 (n = 92). Patients were selected by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 (ICD-10) and Diagnosis Related Grouper (DRG) codes.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference favouring SDD in total hospital cost (p < 0.0001), average direct costs (p < 0.0001) and average charges (p < 0.0016). SDD average hospital costs were $8699 (values in USD throughout) compared with $11 652 for POD 1 (p < 0.0001), and average SDD hospital charges were $85 506 compared with $97 008 for POD1 (p < 0.0016). The net revenue for SDD was $22 319 while for POD1 it was $26 173 (p = 0.14). Upon comparison of contribution margins (SDD $13 620 vs. POD1 $14 522), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.73). There were no identified statistically significant differences in operating room time, robotic console time, readmission rates or surgical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Amidst the pandemic-related constraints, we found that SDD was associated with lower hospital costs and comparable contribution margins compared with POD1. Additionally, the study was unable to identify any significant difference between operating time, readmissions, and surgical complications when performing SDD.

The impact of operative approach on postoperative outcomes and healthcare utilization after colectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate national trends in adoption of different surgical approaches for colectomy and compare clinical outcomes and resource utilization between approaches.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective inpatient left or right colectomy between 2010 and 2019 from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were classified by operative approach: open, minimally invasive: either laparoscopic or robotic. Postoperative outcomes assessed within index hospitalization include operating room time, hospital length of stay, rates of conversion to open surgery, reoperation, and complications. Post-discharge readmission, hospital-based encounters, and costs were collected to 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes between operative approaches adjusted for patient baseline characteristics and clustering within hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 206,967 patients, the robotic approach rates increased from 2.1%/1.6% (2010) to 32.6%/26.8% (2019) for left/right colectomy, offset by a decrease in both open and laparoscopic approaches. Median length of stay for both left and right colectomies was significantly longer in open (6 days) and laparoscopic (5 days) compared to robotic surgery (4 days; all P values <.001). Robotic surgery compared to open and laparoscopic was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate, development of ileus, overall complications, and 30-day hospital encounters. Robotic surgery further demonstrated lower mortality, reoperations, postoperative bleeding, and readmission rates for left and right colectomies than open. Robotic surgery had significantly longer operating room times and higher costs than either open or laparoscopic.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in colon surgery, with outcomes equivalent and in some domains superior to laparoscopic.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Enhanced Recovery Dissemination in Michigan Hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate real-world effects of enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) dissemination on clinical and economic outcomes after colectomy.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Hospitals aiming to accelerate discharge and reduce spending after surgery are increasingly adopting perioperative ERPs. Despite their efficacy in specialty institutions, most studies have lacked adequate control groups and diverse hospital settings and have considered only in-hospital costs. There remain concerns that accelerated discharge might incur unintended consequences.

METHODS

Retrospective, population-based cohort including patients in 72 hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative clinical registry (N = 13,611) and/or Michigan Value Collaborative claims registry (N = 14,800) who underwent elective colectomy, 2012 to 2018. Marginal effects of ERP on clinical outcomes and risk-adjusted, price-standardized 90-day episode payments were evaluated using mixed-effects models to account for secular trends and hospital performance unrelated to ERP.

RESULTS

In 24 ERP hospitals, patients Post-ERP had significantly shorter length of stay than those Pre-ERP (5.1 vs 6.5 days, P < 0.001), lower incidence of complications (14.6% vs 16.9%, P < 0.001) and readmissions (10.4% vs 11.3%, P = 0.02), and lower episode payments ($28,550 vs $31,192, P < 0.001) and postacute care ($3,384 vs $3,909, P < 0.001). In mixed-effects adjusted analyses, these effects were significantly attenuated-ERP was associated with a marginal length of stay reduction of 0.4 days (95% confidence interval 0.2-0.6 days, P = 0.001), and no significant difference in complications, readmissions, or overall spending.

CONCLUSIONS

ERPs are associated with small reduction in postoperative length of hospitalization after colectomy, without unwanted increases in readmission or postacute care spending. The real-world effects across a variety of hospitals may be smaller than observed in early-adopting specialty centers.

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.

What Does a Diagnosis of Depression Mean for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Depression has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients after surgery. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of documented depression diagnosis on in-hospital postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients from the National Inpatient Sample (2002-2017) who underwent proctectomies and colectomies were included. The outcomes measured included total hospital charge, length of stay, delirium, wound infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, mortality, paralytic ileus, leak, and discharge trends. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 4,212,125 patients, depression diagnosis was present in 6.72% of patients who underwent colectomy and 6.54% of patients who underwent proctectomy. Regardless of procedure type, patients with depression had higher total hospital charges and greater rates of delirium, wound infection, UTI, leak, and nonroutine discharge, with no difference in length of stay. On adjusted analysis, patients with a depression diagnosis who underwent colectomies had increased risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93-2.32), wound infection (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.12), UTI (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.20), paralytic ileus (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), and leak (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.30-1.43). Patients who underwent proctectomy showed similar results, with the addition of significantly increased total hospital charges among the depression group. Depression diagnosis was independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (colectomy OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.62; proctectomy OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a diagnosis of depression suffer worse in-hospital outcomes but experience lower risk of in-hospital mortality after undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are needed to validate and fully understand the driving factors behind this.

Enhanced Recovery Pathway Benefits Patients Undergoing Nonelective Colorectal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to determine if an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) can successfully be applied in nonelective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

ERPs have been shown to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS), complications, and costs after elective colorectal surgery. Yet, little data exist regarding the benefits of ERPs in patients undergoing nonelective colorectal surgery. We hypothesized that ERP implementation in a nonelective colorectal surgery population is associated with decreased postoperative LOS.

METHODS

A prospectively-maintained database was used to identify consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery after emergency room (ER) or hospital transfer admissions over a period from 2 years before until 1 year after implementation of a comprehensive ERP. The primary endpoint was LOS. Secondary endpoints included total LOS [TLOS = postoperative LOS + LOS of readmission(s)], readmission rates, complication rates, 30-day mortality, and hospital costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationship between ERP implementation and LOS.

RESULTS

We identified 269 pre-ERP and 135 ERP patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Admit source (ER 43.4% vs transfers 56.7%), Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, diagnosis (inflammatory bowel disease 45.8%, malignancy 19.6%, benign intestinal obstructions 10.4%, diverticulitis 9.4%, others 10.4%), and blood loss were comparable (P > 0.05) between the cohorts. Pre-ERP patients had a higher number of previous abdominal surgeries, whereas post-ERP patients had more laparoscopy and more compliance with ERP elements. ERP patients had a shorter postoperative LOS [6 (4, 10) vs 7 (5, 12) days; P = 0.0007]. Hospital costs were 13.4% lower (P = 0.004). Postoperative 30-day morbidity, mortality, and readmissions were comparable, although reoperation rate was higher in the ERP group. On multivariate analysis, ERP implementation and laparoscopy were the only modifiable variables independently associated with shorter LOS, whereas longer operative times and higher ASA classification were associated with longer LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing nonelective colorectal surgery after ER or hospital transfer admission benefit from the use of an ERP, demonstrating decreased LOS and costs without an increase in complications.

The impact of an enhanced recovery program (ERP) on the costs of colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERPs) benefit patients but their effects on healthcare costs remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the costs associated with a colorectal ERP in a large academic health system.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colorectal surgery from 2012 to 2014 (pre-ERP) and 2015-2017 (ERP) were propensity score matched based on patient and operative-level characteristics. Primary outcomes were median variable, fixed, and total costs. Secondary outcomes included length-of-stay (LOS), readmissions, and postoperative complications (POCs).

RESULTS

616 surgical cases were included. Patient and operative-level characteristics were similar between the cohorts. Variable costs were $1028 less with ERP. ERP showed savings in nursing, surgery, anesthesiology, pharmacy, and laboratory costs, but had higher fixed costs. Total costs between the two groups were similar. ERP patients had significantly shorter LOS (-1 day, p < 0.01), but similar 30-day readmission rates and overall POCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an ERP for colorectal surgery was associated with lower variable costs compared to pre-ERP.

Robotic-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis

AIM

The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy, reporting for the first time in literature, a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

This is a case-matched prospective non-randomized study conducted from October 2013 to October 2017 at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma or adenoma, not suitable endoscopic resection were treated with robot-assisted right colectomy and a propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance preoperative characteristics of a laparoscopic control group. Perioperative, postoperative, long-term oncological results and costs were analysed, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000 and 30,000 per QALY was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost effective.

RESULTS

Thirty-five robot-assisted right colectomies were included and a group of 35 laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy was selected. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with longer operation times (243 min vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in terms of total costs between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (9455.14 vs 8227.50 respectively, p = 0.21). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000, there was a 78.78-95.04% probability that the robotic group was cost effective relative to laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted right colectomy is a safe and feasible technique and is a cost-effective procedure.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colectomy: Analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database

Minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy via the laparoscopic approach (LA) has numerous benefits. We seek to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic sigmoid colectomies. We analyzed the data using the National Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2014. Utilization and outcome measures were compared. The seven-year average number of patients who underwent elective sigmoid colectomy in the United States from 2008 to 2014 was estimated to be 197,053. Of these, 95.1 per cent were conducted using the LA. The mean age was 58.33 + 13.6 years and 58.23 + 12.8 years in laparoscopic and robotic approaches, respectively. No significant differences existed in respect to morbidities. Postoperative complications were comparable with respect to other complications. Length of hospital stay was statistically significantly shorter in the robot-assisted approach compared with the LA (mean 4.8 + 4 vs 5.7 + 5 days, respectively, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent robotic surgery had significantly higher total hospital charges than those who underwent laparoscopic surgery (median $45,057 vs $57,871 USD, P < 0.001). The advent of robot-assisted surgery has provided more options for patients and surgeons. Compared with laparoscopy, robot-assisted sigmoid colectomy has no clinical advantages in morbidity and mortality. However, the robotic approach has a significantly higher total charge to the patient.

Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: cost-effectiveness analysis

AIM

The cost effectiveness of the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is still debated, and the current literature does not allow to be drawn certain conclusion. Our study compared direct clinical costs and outcomes for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with the two most used type of anastomosis, such as ExtraCorporeal Anastomosis (ECA) and IntraCorporeal Anastomosis (ICA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, all patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis between January 2016 and April 2018 were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of anastomosis: ECA or ICA.

RESULTS

Thirty ECA and twenty-nine ICA patients were included in the study. Operative time was significantly longer in ICA group than ECA group (p < 0.001). No significant differences between the groups were seen in terms of timeto- first flatus, postoperative complications and re-admission rate. ICA group showed a shorter hospitalization (5 vs 6; p < 0.022). In the ICA group, considering only the surgical tools were more expensive than in ECA (1435.6 € vs 72 €). Nevertheless, the total cost of the two procedures in similar (14451.36 € in ECA group vs 14631.04 € in ICA group).

CONCLUSION

ECA and ICA are comparable in terms of postoperative outcomes. ICA requires much more expensive charges, compared to a minor hospitalization. The ECA seems to be less expensive in terms of surgical supplies but the longer recovery determines an increase in the total cost resulting in a non-inferiority of one compared to the other technique.

KEY WORDS

Cost-analysis, ExtraCorporeal Anastomosis, IntraCorporeal Anastomosis, Laparoscopy, Right Hemicolectomy.

Variation in expenditure for common, high cost surgical procedures in a working age population: implications for reimbursement reform

BACKGROUND

In the move toward value-based care, bundled payments are believed to reduce waste and improve coordination. Some commercial insurers have addressed this through the use of bundled payment, the provision of one fee for all care associated with a given index procedure. This system was pioneered by Medicare, using a population generally over 65 years of age, and despite its adoption by mainstream insurers, little is known of bundled payments' ability to reduce variation or cost in a working-age population. This study uses a universally-insured, nationally-representative population of adults aged 18-65 to examine the effect of bundled payments for five high-cost surgical procedures which are known to vary widely in Medicare reimbursement: hip replacement, knee replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), lumbar spinal fusion, and colectomy.

METHODS

Five procedures conducted on adults aged 18-65 were identified from the TRICARE database from 2011 to 2014. A 90-day period from index procedure was used to determine episodes of associated post-acute care. Data was sorted by Zip code into hospital referral regions (HRR). Payments were determined from TRICARE reimbursement records, they were subsequently price standardized and adjusted for patient and surgical characteristics. Variation was assessed by stratifying the HRR into quintiles by spending for each index procedure.

RESULTS

After adjusting for case mix, significant inter-quintile variation was observed for all procedures, with knee replacement showing the greatest variation in both index surgery (107%) and total cost of care (75%). Readmission was a driver of variation for colectomy and CABG, with absolute cost variation of $17,257 and $13,289 respectively. Other post-acute care spending was low overall (≤$1606, for CABG).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates significant regional variation in total spending for these procedures, but much lower spending for post-acute care than previously demonstrated by similar procedures in Medicare. Targeting post-acute care spending, a common approach taken by providers in bundled payment arrangements with Medicare, may be less fruitful in working aged populations.

Who Will be the Costliest Patients? Using Recent Claims to Predict Expensive Surgical Episodes

INTRODUCTION

Surgery accounts for almost half of inpatient spending, much of which is concentrated in a subset of high-cost patients. To study the effects of surgeon and hospital characteristics on surgical expenditures, a way to adjust for patient characteristics is essential.

DESIGN

Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified patients aged 66-99 undergoing elective inpatient surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting, colectomy, and total hip/knee replacement) in 2014. We calculated price-standardized Medicare payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days after discharge (episode payments). On the basis of predictor variables from 2013, that is, Elixhauser comorbidities, hierarchical condition categories, Medicare's Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW), and total spending, we constructed models to predict the costs of surgical episodes in 2014.

RESULTS

All sources of comorbidity data performed well in predicting the costliest cases (Spearman correlation 0.86-0.98). Models on the basis of hierarchical condition categories had slightly superior performance. The costliest quintile of patients as predicted by the model captured 35%-45% of the patients in each procedure's actual costliest quintile. For example, in hip replacement, 44% of the costliest quintile was predicted by the model's costliest quintile.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of surgical spending can be predicted using patient factors on the basis of readily available claims data. By adjusting for patient factors, this will facilitate future research on unwarranted variation in episode payments driven by surgeons, hospitals, or other market forces.

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.

Factors associated with switching between low and super utilization in the surgical population: A study in medicare expenditure

BACKGROUND

Considered the top 5% of healthcare utilizers, "super-utilizers" are estimated to consume as much as 40-55% of all healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with switching between low- and super-utilization.

METHODS

Low and super-utilizers who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), colectomy, total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), or lung resection between 2013 and 2015 were identified from 100% Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files.

RESULTS

Among 1,049,160 patients, 788,488 (75.1%) and 21,700 (2.1%) patients were low- or super-utilizers prior to surgery, respectively. Among patients who were super-utilizers before surgery, 23% remained super-utilizers post-operatively, yet 26.8% patients became low-utilizers after surgery. Factors associated with moving from low-to super-utilization in the pre-versus post-operative setting included AAA repair, higher Charlson, and pulmonary failure. In contrast, pre-operative super-utilizers who became low-utilizers in the post-operative setting were less likely to be African American or have undergone CABG.

CONCLUSION

While 3% of pre-operative low-utilizers became super-utilizers likely due to complications, nearly one quarter of all pre-operative super-utilizers became low-utilizers following surgery suggesting success of the surgery to resolve underlying conditions associated with preoperative super-utilization.

Readmissions attributable to skilled nursing facility use after a colectomy: Evidence using propensity scores matching

Background

Postacute care (PAC) is a major driver of the rising health care costs in the United States (US). There is limited evidence on the causal effect of skilled nursing facility (SNF) use on readmission after an inpatient colectomy.

Study design

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4) on 38,635 patients who underwent an inpatient colectomy between 2011 and 2014 in a Pennsylvania hospital. Using propensity scores, we matched patients who were discharged to a SNF to those who were discharged elsewhere. We compared the probability of readmissions within 30 days for the two groups of matched patients in a regression framework. For the subset of patients who were readmitted within 30 days, we assessed whether patients discharged to SNF were readmitted earlier than those discharged to other entities.

Results

The use of a SNF after a colectomy significantly raises the patients’ chance of readmissions within 30 days, even after controlling for their demographic characteristics and illness severity. Based on our estimates, being discharged to a SNF raises the chance of a readmission by 7.7 percentage points. For patients who were admitted within 30 days, we find no association between discharge to a SNF and the timing of readmission.

Conclusion

Sending less severe patients to facilities other than a SNF following inpatient colectomy may help hospitals reduce 30-day readmission rates.

Diagnosis-Related Group in Colon Surgery: Identifying Areas of Improvement to Drive High-Value Care

Diagnosis-related group (DRG) migration is defined as the reassignment of colectomy patients from DRG 331 to 330 based exclusively on postoperative complications. Strategic and comparative application of this metric has the potential to demonstrate baseline and excessive rates of complications related directly to patient care differences across institutions. The aim of this study was to report the variability of DRG migration across United States hospitals and its impact on overall cost and length of stay (LOS). This study investigated the variability of DRG migration rates across United States hospitals polling 5 per cent of the national Medicare data. The study endpoints were total cost, LOS, and DRG migration rate. Hospitals were classified into tertiles for low (0.1-16.6%), moderate (16.7-23.0%), and high (23.1-83.3%) DRG migration rates. The study included 5120 patients from 615 hospitals. DRG migration rates for hospitals ranged from 0.1 per cent to 83.3 per cent, with 157 in the low, 183 in the moderate, and 364 in the high tertile. DRG migration resulted in a progressively increased LOS and hospital costs from the lowest to highest tertile. Several diagnoses were identified which are suggestive of failure to integrate evidence-based processes of care across the tertiles. The data confirm a wide variation in DRG migration rates from DRG 331 to 330 based only on postoperative complications. These ranges allow for the potential definition of both best practice, and opportunities for quality improvement with respect to postoperative complications, identification of hospital outliers, and the economics of care as part of a value-based care program.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

All acute hospitals of the National Health System in England.

POPULATION

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

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Reliability of hospital cost profiles in inpatient surgery

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

AIM

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

KEY WORDS

Bowel obstruction, Colonic cancer, Colonic stenting.

Advantages of laparoscopic resection for ileocolic Crohn’s disease

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robotic colectomy: is it necessary?

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Role of robotic surgery in colorectal resections for cancer

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Trends in the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis over time: increased mortality and centralization of care

BACKGROUND

New medical therapies available to ulcerative colitis (UC) patients have influenced operative mortality for patients requiring colectomy. We sought to examine trends in treatment and outcome for UC patients treated surgically.

METHODS

A review of 36,447 UC patients from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was performed, comparing the pre-monoclonal antibody era (1990-1996) to the present-day era (2000-2006). Patients treated with total colectomy with ileostomy or proctocolectomy with ileal pouch were reviewed for outcome measures and practice setting (rural, urban non-teaching, urban teaching). Our main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and total charges.

RESULTS

Total colectomy (n = 30,362) was performed five times more often than proctocolectomy (n = 6,085). When comparing the two study periods, mortality after total colectomy increased 3.8% to 4.6% (p = 0.0003). This difference was primarily due to increasing mortality in later years; when 1995-1996 was compared to 2005-2006, mortality increased from 3.6% to 5.6% (p < 0.0001). There were no deaths in the proctocolectomy group (p < 0.0001). The distribution by practice setting shifted over the two study periods, decreasing in rural (7.0% to 4.8%) and urban non-teaching (43.7% to 28.4%) centers, and increasing in urban teaching centers (49.3% to 66.8%). The total inflation-adjusted charges per patient increased significantly ($34,638 vs. $43,621; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality rate after total colectomy is increasing, and the difference is accentuated in the years since widespread use of monoclonal antibody therapy. The care of these patients is being shifted to urban teaching centers and is becoming more expensive.

Cost-efficiency of laparoscopic versus open colon surgery in a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND

Real-world cost analysis of elective laparoscopic versus open colon resection in a tertiary Canadian teaching hospital was performed to evaluate the financial impact of minimally invasive surgery with the appointment of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon in a single-payer system.

METHODS

A retrospective review of elective laparoscopic and open segmental colectomies (2005-2010) was performed. Combined cases and procedures performed for inpatients were excluded to minimize cost variation. The hospital case-costing system was used to calculate the hourly cost of operating room time and the daily hospital ward stay. The cost of disposable equipment was calculated manually. A cost-minimization analysis was performed from the hospital perspective, which excludes physician payment. Cases were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

For this study, 470 right-side colectomies (322 open and 148 laparoscopic) and 266 left-side colectomies (181 open and 85 laparoscopic) were found to match the inclusion criteria. The operating room time was longer for the laparoscopic procedures than for the open procedures: 203.4 versus 173.4 min (P = 0.1) for right and extended right hemicolectomy (RC) and 287.4 versus 173.4 min (P = 0.009) for left and sigmoid colectomy (LC). This resulted in higher operating room costs: $4,094.10 versus $3312.11 for RC and $5,784.88 versus $4,582.55 for LC. The median hospital stay for an index admission was shorter for both sides: 5 days versus 8 days (P = 0.01) for RC and 4 days versus 6 days (P = 0.04). This resulted in lower ward costs: $4,556.07 versus $6,632.82 for RC and $3,297.24 versus $5,949.09 for LC. The cost of care per index admission after laparoscopic versus open resection was $10,097.93 versus $10,444.69 for RC and $11,067.72 versus. $11,146.56 for LC. The introduction of laparoscopic surgery has saved our institution $58,021.43 over 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The reasons for observed differences in operating room time and length of hospital stay were uncontrolled and may be multifactorial. However, the results demonstrate that adopting a laparoscopic approach for elective colon surgery resulted in progressive financial savings.

Controversy of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Laparoscopically assisted colorectal procedures are time-consuming and technically demanding and hence have a long steep learning curve. In the technical demand, surgeons need to handle a long mobile organ, the colon, and have to operate on multiple abdominal quadrants, most of the time with the need to secure multiple mesenteric vessels. Therefore, a new surgical innovation called hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in the mid 1990s as a useful alternative to totally laparoscopic procedures. This hybrid operation allows the surgeon to introduce the non-dominant hand into the abdominal cavity through a special hand port while maintaining the pneumoperitoneum. A hand in the abdomen can restore the tactile sensation which is usually lacking in laparoscopic procedures. It also improves the eye-to-hand coordination, allows the hand to be used for blunt dissection or retraction and also permits rapid control of unexpected bleeding. All of those factors can contribute tremendously to reducing the operative time. Moreover, this procedure is also considered as a hybrid procedure that combines the advantages of both minimally invasive and conventional open surgery. Nevertheless, the exact role of HALS in colorectal surgery has not been well defined during the advanced totally laparoscopic procedures. This article reviews the current status of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery as a minimally invasive procedure in the era of laparoscopic surgery.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of common laparoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to offer superior surgical outcomes for most abdominal surgical procedures. However, there is hardly any evidence on surgical outcomes with patient risk stratification. This study aimed to compare outcomes of common laparoscopic and open surgical procedures for varying illness severity.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of surgical outcomes for six commonly performed surgical procedures including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, reflux surgery, gastric bypass surgery, ventral hernia repair, and colectomy was performed using the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database/Resource Manager (CDB/RM). The 3-year discharge data for the six commonly performed laparoscopic surgical procedures were analyzed for outcome measures including observed mortality, overall patient morbidity, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, 30-day readmissions, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

In this study, 208,314 patients underwent one of six common surgical procedures by either the open or the laparoscopic approach. Overall, the laparoscopic approach showed significantly lower mortality, reduced morbidity, fewer ICU admissions and 30-day readmissions, shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced hospital costs for all the procedures. At stratification by illness severity, the laparoscopic group showed better or comparable surgical outcomes across all the illness severity groups. However, the observed mortality was comparable for the minor and moderate severity patients between laparoscopic and open surgery for most procedures. The 30-day readmission rate for major/extreme severity patients was comparable between the two groups for most surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the superiority of laparoscopy over conventional open surgery across all illness severity risk groups for common surgical procedures. The results in general show that laparoscopic surgery is safe, efficacious, and cost-effective compared with open surgery and suggest that laparoscopic surgery should be the procedure of choice for all common surgical procedures, regardless of illness severity.

A programme of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a cost-effective intervention in elective colonic surgery

AIM

There are few published ERAS cost-analyses in colorectal surgery. The aim of this paper is to evaluate whether costs saved by reduced postoperative resource utilisation would offset the financial burden of setting up and maintaining such an ERAS programme.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare provider perspective using a case-control model. The study group consisted of patients enrolled in the ERAS program for elective colonic surgery at Manukau Surgical Centre between December 2005 and March 2007. The control group consisted of consecutive patients from September 2004 to September 2005 (before the start of ERAS). Groups were matched with respect to operation, BMI, ASA, and Cr-POSSUM score.

RESULTS

Data were available for 50 patients in each group. There was a significant reduction in total hospital stay, intravenous fluid use, and duration of epidural use in the ERAS group. There were significantly fewer complications in the ERAS group. Implementation of ERAS cost approximately $NZ102,000, but this has been more than offset by costs saved in reduced postoperative resource utilisation, with an overall cost-saving of approximately NZ$6900 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Implementing an ERAS program is cost-effective in the medium term, with costs offset by those recovered by reduced resource utilisation in the postoperative period.

Surgical warranties to improve quality and efficiency in elective colon surgery

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated surgical care has highly variable costs. High costs of complications have led payers to deny additional payments even for predictable complications.

HYPOTHESIS

A payment warranty indexed to effective and efficient hospitals can promote quality and economic stewardship in surgical care.

DESIGN

Analysis of hospital costs for elective colon surgery in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample from 2002 through 2005.

SETTING

A 20% sample of acute care hospitals in the United States.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data for elective colon resections were used to create predictive models for adverse outcomes (AOs) and costs. Total hospital costs were determined using cost-to-charge ratios. Costs of AOs were computed as total costs minus predicted costs of uncomplicated care. Surgical warranties were computed as the probability of AOs times per-case predicted costs of AOs. Final predictive models were calibrated using data only from effective and efficient hospitals.

RESULTS

We studied 51 602 cases from 632 hospitals. There were 4048 (7.8%) AOs with 505 deaths (1.0%); 19 hospitals had excessive AOs and 95 hospitals had excessive costs. For 518 effective and efficient hospitals, total per-case costs for routine care were $9843 with an average warranty of $1294 and a $276 stop-loss allocation. This cost model would reduce national expenditures for colon surgery by 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications and costs of care can be indexed to quality performing hospitals. Warranties for surgical care can reward effective and efficient care and preclude the need for additional payments for complications.

Cost-effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of acute exacerbations of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Infliximab has been shown to be efficacious in acute exacerbations of ulcerative colitis (UC).

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of infliximab treatment in patients hospitalised with acute exacerbations of UC.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was constructed to simulate the progression of acute UC patients treated with infliximab induction regimen over 1 year. Infliximab treatment was compared with standard care, ciclosporin and surgery using transitions derived from infliximab and ciclosporin randomised trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Intermediate outcomes of colectomy and post-surgery complications were translated into the primary effectiveness measurement, which was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) estimated using EQ-5D. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate the uncertainty around the results.

RESULTS

The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for infliximab was pound19,545 per QALY compared to ciclosporin, which in turn dominated standard care. Sensitivity analysis indicated patient body weight, utility estimates and treatment effect of alternative treatment strategies to be the most important factors affecting cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Infliximab induction regimen appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for UC patients hospitalised with an acute exacerbation.

Economic burden of postoperative ileus associated with colectomy in the United States

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ileus, a transient impairment of gastrointestinal motility, is a common cause of delay in return to normal bowel function after abdominal surgery. Colectomy surgery patients who develop postoperative ileus could have greater health care resource utilization, including prolonged hospitalization, compared with those who do not develop postoperative ileus. Very few studies have assessed the impact of postoperative ileus on resource utilization and costs using retrospective analysis of administrative databases.

OBJECTIVE

To assess health care utilization and costs in colectomy surgery patients who developed postoperative ileus versus those who did not.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study design was used. Adult patients with a principal procedure code for colectomy (ICD-9-CM procedure codes 45.71-45.79), discharged between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, were identified from the Premier Perspective database of inpatient records from more than 500 hospitals in the United States. The colectomy patients were further classified for the presence of postoperative ileus, identified by the presence, in any diagnosis field on the administrative patient records, of a code for paralytic ileus (ICD-9-CM code 560.1) and/or digestive system complications (ICD-9-CM code 997.4) during the inpatient stay. Code 997.4 was used to account for cases in which postoperative ileus would be reported as a complication of anastomosis, as could be the case in colectomy surgeries. Hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospitalization costs were compared using t-tests. Multivariate analyses were performed with log-transformed LOS and log-transformed cost as the dependent variables. Patient demographics, mortality risk, disease severity, admission source, payment type (retrospective/prospective), and hospital characteristics were used as covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 17,876 patients with primary procedure code for colectomy were identified, of whom 3115 (17.4%) patients were classified for presence of postoperative ileus (including paralytic ileus only [n=1216; 6.8%], digestive system complications only [n=383; 2.1%], or both [n=1516; 8.5%]). A majority of the colectomy patients with and without postoperative ileus, respectively, were male (54.1% vs. 50.3%, P < 0.001), Caucasian (70.5% vs. 69.3%, P = 0.170), and aged 51-64 years (51.1% vs. 49.7%, P = 0.143). The mean [SD] hospital LOS was significantly longer in patients with postoperative ileus (13.8 [13.3] days) compared with patients without postoperative ileus (8.9 [9.5] days; P < 0.001). Presence of postoperative ileus was found to be a significant predictor of LOS (P < 0.001) in the regression model, controlling for covariates. Female gender (P = 0.002), greater severity level (P < 0.001), and hospital bed size of more than 500 (P = 0.013) were other significant predictors of hospital LOS. Presence of postoperative ileus was found to be a significant predictor of hospitalization costs (P < 0.001), controlling for covariates.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative ileus in colectomy patients is a significant predictor of hospital resource utilization.