[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Surgical resection of hepatic lesions is associated with intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Our center has introduced a laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) program over the past 3 years. Our objective is to describe the initial clinical experience with LLR, including a detailed cost analysis.
We evaluated all LLRs from 2006 to 2010. Each was matched to 2 open cases for number of segments removed, patient age, and background liver histology. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and the Charlson comorbidity index were calculated retrospectively. Nonparametric statistical analysis was used to compare surgical and economic outcomes. Analyses were performed including and excluding converted cases.
Fifty-seven patients underwent attempted LLR. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Estimated blood loss was lower in the LLR vs the open liver resection (OLR) group, at 250 mL and 500 mL, respectively (p < 0.001). Median operating room times were 240 minutes and 270 minutes in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively (p = 0.14). Eight cases were converted to open (14%): 2 for bleeding, 2 for anatomic uncertainty, 1 for tumor size, 1 for margins, 1 for inability to localize the tumor, and 1 for adhesions. Median length of stay was lower for LLR at 5 days vs 6 days for OLR (p < 0.001). There was no difference in frequency of ICU admission, reoperation, 30-day emergency room visit, or 30-day readmission rates. Median overall cost for LLR was lower at $11,376 vs $12,523 for OLR (p = 0.077).
Our experience suggests that LLR confers the clinical advantages of reduced operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay while decreasing overall cost. LLR, therefore, appears to be a clinically and fiscally advantageous approach in properly selected patients.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons 12/2011; 214(2):184-95. DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.10.020 · 5.12 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The cost implications of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and a detailed breakdown of hospital expenditures has not been presented in the literature to date. This study aimed to compare hospital costs and short-term clinical outcomes between LDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).
The authors evaluated all the distal pancreatic resections performed at their center between January 2004 and March 2010. Parametric and nonparametric statistical analysis was used to compare hospital departmental and total hospital costs as well as oncologic and surgical outcomes.
A total of 118 cases (42 laparoscopic resections, including 5 conversions, and 76 open resections) were analyzed. The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups except for a predominance of females in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.036). The indications for surgery differed by a paucity of malignant tumors being approached laparoscopically (P < 0.001). Intraoperatively, there were no differences in estimated blood loss, operating room time, or transfusion requirement. The pathologic outcomes did not differ significantly. The median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 5 days (range 3-31 days) for the LDP cohort and 7 days (range 4-19 days) for the ODP cohort (P < 0.001). Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred for 22 patients, with a higher proportion observed in the LDP group (28.57%; n = 12) than in the open group (13.16%; n = 10; P = 0.05). However, the rates for grade B and higher grade fistula were higher in the ODP group (0 LDP and 4 ODP). The median preadmission and operative costs did not differ significantly. The ODP cohort had significantly higher costs in all other hospital departments, including the total cost.
LDP is both a cost-effective and safe approach for distal pancreatic lesions. This series showed a shorter LOS and lower total hospital costs for LDP than for ODP, accompanied by equivalent postoperative outcomes.
Surgical Endoscopy 12/2011; 26(5):1220-30. DOI:10.1007/s00464-011-2061-y · 3.26 Impact Factor
Gastroenterology 01/2011; 140(5). DOI:10.1016/S0016-5085(11)64228-5 · 16.72 Impact Factor