BACKGROUND: In the era of cost-conscious healthcare, hospitals are focusing on costs. Analysis of hospital costs per cost category may provide indications for potential cost-saving measures in the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) with gallbladder in situ. METHODS: Between October 2005 and September 2006, 53 consecutive patients suffering from CBDS underwent either a one-stage procedure [laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with stone clearance and cholecystectomy (LCCE)] or a two-stage procedure [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy and stone clearance (ERCP/ERS) followed by LCCE]. Costs were defined in different cost categories for each activity centre and were linked to the individual patient via the "bill of activities". Only patients (n = 38) with an uneventful post-procedural course and with available cost data were considered for cost analysis. Total length of hospital stay (LOS) was 2 (0-6) days after one-stage and 8 (3-18) days after two-stage procedure (p < 0.0001). RESULTS: Costs per patient were significantly (p < 0.0001) less after one-stage versus two-stage management, i.e. total hospital costs (euro2,636 versus euro4,608), hospitalisation costs (euro701 versus euro2,190), consumables/pharmacy (euro645 versus euro1,476) and para-medical personnel (euro1,035 versus euro1,860; p = 0.0002). Operation room (OR) costs were comparable for one-stage and two-stage management (euro1,278 versus euro1,232; p = 0.280). Total hospital costs during ERCP were euro2,648 (euro729-4,544), during LCCE without LCBDE were euro2,101 (euro1,033-4,269), and during LCCE with LCBDE were euro2,636 (euro1,176-4,235). CONCLUSION: In the management of patients with CBDS and gallbladder in situ a one-stage procedure is associated with significantly less costs as compared with a two-stage procedure. From the economical point of view these patients should preferably be treated via a one-stage procedure as long as safety and efficacy of this approach are provided.
BACKGROUND: In the era of cost-conscious healthcare, hospitals are focusing on costs. Analysis of hospital costs per cost category may provide indications for potential cost-saving measures in the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) with gallbladder in situ. METHODS: Between October 2005 and September 2006, 53 consecutive patients suffering from CBDS underwent either a one-stage procedure [laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with stone clearance and cholecystectomy (LCCE)] or a two-stage procedure [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy and stone clearance (ERCP/ERS) followed by LCCE]. Costs were defined in different cost categories for each activity centre and were linked to the individual patient via the "bill of activities". Only patients (n = 38) with an uneventful post-procedural course and with available cost data were considered for cost analysis. Total length of hospital stay (LOS) was 2 (0-6) days after one-stage and 8 (3-18) days after two-stage procedure (p < 0.0001). RESULTS: Costs per patient were significantly (p < 0.0001) less after one-stage versus two-stage management, i.e. total hospital costs (euro2,636 versus euro4,608), hospitalisation costs (euro701 versus euro2,190), consumables/pharmacy (euro645 versus euro1,476) and para-medical personnel (euro1,035 versus euro1,860; p = 0.0002). Operation room (OR) costs were comparable for one-stage and two-stage management (euro1,278 versus euro1,232; p = 0.280). Total hospital costs during ERCP were euro2,648 (euro729-4,544), during LCCE without LCBDE were euro2,101 (euro1,033-4,269), and during LCCE with LCBDE were euro2,636 (euro1,176-4,235). CONCLUSION: In the management of patients with CBDS and gallbladder in situ a one-stage procedure is associated with significantly less costs as compared with a two-stage procedure. From the economical point of view these patients should preferably be treated via a one-stage procedure as long as safety and efficacy of this approach are provided.
Authors: B Topal; M Van de Moortel; S Fieuws; D Vanbeckevoort; W Van Steenbergen; R Aerts; F Penninckx Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 6.939