S E Noblett1, A F Horgan. 1. Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs associated with laparoscopic resection within an elective colorectal practice. METHOD: Over a 12-month period data were prospectively collected on patients undergoing elective colorectal resection under the care of a single consultant surgeon. Thirty patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection were case-matched by type of resection, disease process, and, where appropriate, cancer stage to patients having open surgery. A cost analysis was carried out incorporating cost of surgical bed stay, theater time, and specific equipment costs. RESULTS: In the 30 patients having laparoscopic resection, a conversion rate of 13% was observed. Surgery was performed for colorectal cancer in 83% of patients, and 53% of resections were rectal. No significant differences were found in age (65 versus 69 years, p = 0.415), BMI (27.4 versus 26.1, p = 0.527), POSSUM physiology score (16 versus 16.5, p = 0.102), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (2 versus 2, p = 0.171), or length of theater time (160 min versus 160 min, p = 0.233) between the laparoscopic and open patients. Hospital stay was reduced in the laparoscopic group (5 versus 9 days, p < 0.001). Average cost of surgical equipment used for a laparoscopic resection was greater than for open surgery (912.39 versus 276.41 pounds, p = 0.001). Cost of hospital stay was significantly less (1259.75 versus 2267.55 pounds, p < 0.001). Cost of operating room time was similar for the two groups (2066.63 versus 1945.07 pounds, p = 0.152). Overall no significant cost difference could be found between open and laparoscopic resection (4560.9 versus 4348.45 pounds, p = 0.976). More postoperative complications were seen in the open resection group (14 versus 4, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative equipment costs are greater for laparoscopic resection than for open surgery. However, benefits can be seen in terms of quicker recovery and shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery is a financially viable alternative to open resection in selected patients.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs associated with laparoscopic resection within an elective colorectal practice. METHOD: Over a 12-month period data were prospectively collected on patients undergoing elective colorectal resection under the care of a single consultant surgeon. Thirty patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection were case-matched by type of resection, disease process, and, where appropriate, cancer stage to patients having open surgery. A cost analysis was carried out incorporating cost of surgical bed stay, theater time, and specific equipment costs. RESULTS: In the 30 patients having laparoscopic resection, a conversion rate of 13% was observed. Surgery was performed for colorectal cancer in 83% of patients, and 53% of resections were rectal. No significant differences were found in age (65 versus 69 years, p = 0.415), BMI (27.4 versus 26.1, p = 0.527), POSSUM physiology score (16 versus 16.5, p = 0.102), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (2 versus 2, p = 0.171), or length of theater time (160 min versus 160 min, p = 0.233) between the laparoscopic and open patients. Hospital stay was reduced in the laparoscopic group (5 versus 9 days, p < 0.001). Average cost of surgical equipment used for a laparoscopic resection was greater than for open surgery (912.39 versus 276.41 pounds, p = 0.001). Cost of hospital stay was significantly less (1259.75 versus 2267.55 pounds, p < 0.001). Cost of operating room time was similar for the two groups (2066.63 versus 1945.07 pounds, p = 0.152). Overall no significant cost difference could be found between open and laparoscopic resection (4560.9 versus 4348.45 pounds, p = 0.976). More postoperative complications were seen in the open resection group (14 versus 4, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative equipment costs are greater for laparoscopic resection than for open surgery. However, benefits can be seen in terms of quicker recovery and shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery is a financially viable alternative to open resection in selected patients.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E Lezoche; F Feliciotti; A M Paganini; M Guerrieri; A De Sanctis; S Minervini; R Campagnacci Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2002-01-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T M Khalili; P R Fleshner; J R Hiatt; T P Sokol; C Manookian; G Tsushima; E H Phillips Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Umashankkar Kannan; Vemuru Sunil K Reddy; Amar N Mukerji; Vellore S Parithivel; Ajay K Shah; Brian F Gilchrist; Daniel T Farkas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Francesco M Polignano; Aaron J Quyn; Rodrigo S M de Figueiredo; Nikola A Henderson; Christoph Kulli; Iain S Tait Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Yoen T K van der Linden; Johannes A Govaert; Marta Fiocco; Wouter A van Dijk; Daniel J Lips; Hubert A Prins Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 2.571