Article

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

Department of Surgery, York Hospital, York, Pennsylvania, USA.
The American surgeon (Impact Factor: 0.92). 06/2012; 78(6):635-41.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
57 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Recent studies have shown that fidaxomicin, a novel antibiotic, can reduce the rate of complications and mortality in patients with colitis induced by Clostridium difficile. Introduction of fidaxomicin in clinical practice is limited by its high costs. Objectives The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of using fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in patients with colitis induced by C. difficile who did not respond to oral metronidazole. Methods We constructed a Markov model that was than simulated by Monte-Carlo simulation using 1000 virtual patients with colitis induced by C. difficile. The perspective in our model was institutional. The time horizon was 3 months. Values of transition probabilities and therapy outcomes were estimated from the available literature, the prices of health services were obtained from the Republic Institute for Health Insurance Tariff Book, and the price of fidaxomicin was derived from data gained from the drug manufacturer. Results The total costs of treating one statistical patient for 3 months with fidaxomicin were higher (48,106.19 ± 118.07 Republic of Serbia dinars [RSD]; 95% confidence interval 47,988.12–48,224.27) than the total costs of treating with vancomycin (25,872.85 ± 41.44 RSD; 95% confidence interval 25,831.41–25,914.29). Our results showed that the treatment of infections induced by C. difficile with fidaxomicin correlated with a lower rate of mortality and with a smaller number of colectomies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for colitis induced by C. difficile per saved life was estimated at 2.97 million RSD and for one avoided colectomy at 10.07 million RSD. Conclusions Results of our model indicate that fidaxomicin is a cost-effective therapy compared with vancomycin in patients with colitis induced by C. difficile if the outcome is life-year saved. However, if the outcome is the number of avoided colectomies, then fidaxomycin is not a cost-effective option compared with vancomycin.
    09/2014; 4:87–94. DOI:10.1016/j.vhri.2014.08.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic colectomy has been associated with favorable outcomes when compared to open colectomy. Single-Incision Robotic Colectomy (SIRC) is a novel procedure hypothesized to improve upon conventional three-port laparoscopic colectomy. We hereby present and analyze our institution's initial experience with SIRC.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic surgery has become well established in the management of both and malignant colorectal disease. The last decade has seen increasing numbers of surgeons trained to a high standard in minimally-invasive surgery. However there has not been the same enthusiasm for the use of laparoscopy in emergency colorectal surgery. There is a perception that emergent surgery is technically more difficult and may lead to worse outcomes. The present review aims to provide a comprehensive and critical appraisal of the available literature on the use of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) in the emergency setting. The literature is broadly divided by the underlying pathology; that is, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticulitis and malignant obstruction. There were no randomized trials and the majority of the studies were case-matched series or comparative studies. The overall trend was that LCS is associated with shorter hospital stay, par or fewer complications but an increased operating time.Emergency LCS can be safely undertaken for both benign and malignant disease providing there is appropriate patient selection, the surgeon is adequately experienced and there are sufficient resources to allow for a potentially more complex operation.