Higher Operating Room Costs Research Articles

Le Fort III in Syndromic Craniosynostosis: Cost Comparison of Distraction Osteogenesis Versus Single-Stage Internal Fixation Techniques.

In syndromic craniosynostosis, the Le Fort III osteotomy is used to correct dental/skeletal imbalance, improve exorbitism, and increase the airway. The purpose of this study is to perform a cost comparison between the standard technique of single-stage rigid internal fixation and distraction osteogenesis (DO) in the Le Fort III osteotomy in this patient population. Hospital cost accounting databases were queried for patients undergoing single-stage advancement (SS) or DO from 2007 to 2016. Nominal cost data were adjusted using the Bank of Canada Consumer Price Index. Reported costs represented the full length of stay for all utilization per patient. Demographic information and cost data for single-stage osteotomy and DO were compared. Total costs for single-stage (n = 8) were higher than distraction (n = 6; mean $CAD57 825 vs $38 268, P < .05). Intensive care unit (ICU) costs for single-stage were significantly higher than distraction (mean, $17 746 vs $5585, P < .005). Distraction cases had higher operating room (OR) costs than single stage, but the difference was not significant (mean, $12 540 vs $9696). Length of stay was significantly longer for SS patients (mean, 11 days vs 7 days, P < .05). This single-institution retrospective cost analysis indicates standard SS rigid internal fixation Le Fort III is more costly than DO. Despite higher OR costs, prolonged ICU and hospital stay was the primary reason behind this difference. This information may be of benefit when advocating for new technology perceived as high cost.

Abstract: Cost Analysis of Distraction Osteogenesis Versus Conventional Surgery in Le Fort III Surgery for Syndromic Craniosynostosis

INTRODUCTION: Midface hypoplasia can be treated using a Le Fort III osteotomy, either via conventional surgery with immediate advancement or distraction osteogenesis to gradually advance the midface. Economic analyses are reported in as few as 0.6 percent of outcome studies in plastic surgery. There is currently no cost-effectiveness data comparing these two modalities in the literature. This study analyzes cost differences between Le Fort III conventional surgery and distraction osteogenesis among pediatric patients with syndromic craniosynostosis. METHODS: Hospital cost-accounting databases were queried for patients undergoing single-stage advancement or distraction osteogenesis from 2007 to 2016. Nominal cost data was adjusted using the Bank of Canada Consumer Price Index. Reported costs represented the full length of stay for all utilization per patient except for anesthesia and surgeon costs (which were equivalent between groups). Parametric and non-parametric tests were used to analyze data. RESULTS: Total costs for single-stage (n=8) were higher than distraction (n=6) (mean $57,825 versus $38,268, p<0.05). ICU costs for single-stage were significantly higher than distraction (mean, $17,746 versus $5,585, p <0.005). Distraction cases had higher OR costs than single stage but the difference was not significant (mean, $12,540 versus $9,696). Length of stay was significantly longer for single-stage patients (mean, 11 days versus 7 days, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: This single-institution retrospective economic analysis indicates conventional Le Fort III is more costly than distraction osteogenesis. Despite higher operating room costs, recovery time led to this cost discrepancy, which is consistent with the theoretical benefits of gradual bony movements being less traumatic. The cost effectiveness ratio adds to comparative analysis of quality outcomes in existing literature and suggests distraction may provide equal clinical outcome for lower cost.

A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open Nissen fundoplication in children under two years of age

AimsThe surgery of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common in modern pediatric surgical practice. Any differences in perioperative and long-term clinical outcomes following laparoscopic (LN) or open Nissen (ON) fundoplication have not been comprehensively described in young children. This randomized, prospective study examines outcomes following LN versus ON in children <2years of age. MethodsFour surgeons at a single institution enrolled patients under 2years of age that required surgical management of GERD, who were then randomized to LN or ON between 2005 and 2012. A universal surgical dressing was employed for blinding. Analgesia and enteral feeding pathways were standardized. The primary outcome was postoperative length of stay. Perioperative outcomes and long-term follow up were collected as secondary outcomes and used to compare groups. ResultsOf 39 enrolled patients, 21 were randomized to ON and 18 to LN. Length of postoperative hospital stay, time of advancement to full enteral feeds, and analgesic requirements were not significantly different between treatment cohorts. The LN group experienced longer median operating times (173 vs 91min, P<0.001) and higher surgical charges ($4450 vs $2722, P=0.002). The incidence of post-discharge complications did not differ significantly between the groups at last follow-up (median 42months). ConclusionsThis randomized trial comparing postoperative outcomes following LN vs ON did not detect statistically significant differences in short- or long-term clinical outcomes between these approaches. LN was associated with longer surgical time and higher operating room costs. The benefits, risks, and costs of laparoscopy should be carefully considered in clinical pediatric surgical practice.

Single Institutional Cost Analysis of 325 Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Partial Nephrectomies

To compare costs associated with partial nephrectomy (PN) using robotic, laparoscopic (LPN), and open (OPN) approaches. An Investigational Review Board-approved prospectively maintained database was reviewed for 325 patients who underwent PN at our institution from January 2009 to December 2010. Costs for each surgical technique were itemized, including hospitalization, operating room (OR), anesthesia, medication, laboratory and pathology, professional fees, and blood bank. Continuous variables were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests, and categoric variables were analyzed with χ(2) and Fisher exact tests. Median costs of RPN were higher than LPN ($632, P= .005), but not significantly higher than OPN ($313, P= .14). The major cause of this difference was OR instrumentation and supplies. OR costs for LPN and OPN were equivalent (P= .11). The cost associated with anesthesia was significantly lower for RPN and LPN than for OPN (P= .002). RPN and LPN had lower hospitalization costs than OPN (P<.0001), which was largely due to the shorter hospital stay (P<.0001) and lower laboratory cost (P<.0001). Pharmacy costs and blood bank costs were not significantly different among groups (P= .09 and P= .48, respectively). RPN had higher operating room costs than LPN and OPN, primarily due to instrumentation and supplies. This higher cost was offset by decreased cost of hospitalization in compared with the OPN group. Modification of practices aimed at lowering RPN instrumentation and supply costs may enable cost equivalence.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

A cost comparison of two strategies for treating stage IB2 cervical cancer

Patients with stage IB2 cervical cancer at our institution are treated primarily with definitive chemoradiation, or chemoradiation followed by adjuvant hysterectomy. We sought to compare the cost differences associated with these two strategies. We identified all patients with stage IB2 cervical cancer who received their entire treatment regimen at our institution between 1995 and 2004. All patients received a combination of chemotherapy, external beam radiation, and one brachytherapy procedure, followed by either a second brachytherapy procedure or a simple hysterectomy. We retrieved cost data associated with hospitalization for the completion of respective treatment, including pharmacy, laboratory and pathology, radiation, and operating room services, as well as the costs of supplies and room and board. We identified 46 patients with stage IB2 cervical cancer, 23 who received a second brachytherapy procedure and 23 who underwent simple hysterectomy. Patients displayed similar demographics and similar disease characteristics including initial tumor diameter and histology. The cost of care for adjuvant hysterectomy group was greater ($8,316.70 vs 5,508.70, P < 0.0001). Specific differences included higher operating room costs ($1520 vs 414, P < 0.0001), pharmacy costs ($675 vs 342, P < 0.0001), and laboratory/pathology costs ($597 vs 89, P < 0.0001). We conclude that definitive chemoradiation appears to be associated with lower costs for management of stage IB2 cervical cancer when compared to simple adjuvant hysterectomy.

Endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest: the effect on postoperative outcomes

Background. Endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) has been promoted as a possible solution to the wound complications, incisional pain, and prolonged convalesce associated with open vein harvesting (OVH). The purpose of this study was to objectively compare the two techniques.Methods. One hundred patients were prospectively randomized to EVH or OVH. Primary outcomes were wound complications, pain (Medical Outcomes Study Pain Survey), and general health (SF-12). Secondary outcomes were operative times and patient preferences. Patients were assessed at hospital discharge, 3, and 6 weeks postdischarge.Results. No significant differences were detected in the primary outcomes: leg infection (p = 0.75), incisional pain (p = 0.74), physical health (p = 0.84), mental health (p = 0.47), and postoperative length of stay (p = 0.74). However, patient preference for EVH was highly significant (p < 0.01).Conclusions. EVH does not demonstrate significant differences compared with OVH. This, coupled with higher operating room costs, should limit its use until clinical benefit is shown. However, strong patient preference and demand for EVH overshadow equivocal clinical outcomes.