Robert P Sticca1, Bree D Dewing, Joel D Harris. 1. Department of Surgery, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 501 North Columbia Road, Grand Forks, ND 58203, USA. rsticca@medicine.nodak.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests implantable central venous access ports (ICVAPs) can be placed by interventional radiologists with fewer complications and lower expenses when compared with surgeons. An analysis of outcomes and expenses of ICVAP placement by service was conducted. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-eight ICVAPs were placed over 3 years at a 230-bed community teaching hospital. A retrospective review of these procedures was conducted. Data recorded for each procedure included patient demographics, reason for placement, indwelling port days, complications, billed charges, and reimbursement. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six (75%) ICVAPs were placed by interventional radiologists, while surgeons placed the remaining 92 ports (25%). Short-term complications were identified in 7 interventional radiologist-placed ports (2.5%) and 1 surgically placed port (1.1%), P = .42. Billed charges were greater for interventional radiologist-placed ports ($5,301 vs $4,552, P = .0001). In contrast, reimbursement was greater for surgically placed ports: interventional radiologist 31.3% of charges, surgery 42.8%, P = .049. CONCLUSION: Reimbursement and charges demonstrated significant differences between surgeons and interventional radiologists. Prior assertions that ports placed by interventional radiologists are less expensive with fewer complications may no longer be valid.
BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests implantable central venous access ports (ICVAPs) can be placed by interventional radiologists with fewer complications and lower expenses when compared with surgeons. An analysis of outcomes and expenses of ICVAP placement by service was conducted. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-eight ICVAPs were placed over 3 years at a 230-bed community teaching hospital. A retrospective review of these procedures was conducted. Data recorded for each procedure included patient demographics, reason for placement, indwelling port days, complications, billed charges, and reimbursement. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six (75%) ICVAPs were placed by interventional radiologists, while surgeons placed the remaining 92 ports (25%). Short-term complications were identified in 7 interventional radiologist-placed ports (2.5%) and 1 surgically placed port (1.1%), P = .42. Billed charges were greater for interventional radiologist-placed ports ($5,301 vs $4,552, P = .0001). In contrast, reimbursement was greater for surgically placed ports: interventional radiologist 31.3% of charges, surgery 42.8%, P = .049. CONCLUSION: Reimbursement and charges demonstrated significant differences between surgeons and interventional radiologists. Prior assertions that ports placed by interventional radiologists are less expensive with fewer complications may no longer be valid.
Authors: Karolin J Paprottka; Jana Voelklein; Tobias Waggershauser; Maximilian F Reiser; Philipp M Paprottka Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Mehmet Aziret; Oktay İrkörücü; Cihan Gökler; Enver Reyhan; Süleyman Çetinkünar; Timuçin Çil; Edip Akpınar; Hasan Erdem; Kamuran Cumhur Değer Journal: Int Surg Date: 2015-05
Authors: Philomena C D'Souza; Shiyam Kumar; Annupam Kakaria; Rashid Al-Sukaiti; Khalid Al-Baimani; Rana S Hamid; Alok K Mittal; Muna Al-Balushi; Ikram A Burney; Mansour S Al-Moundhri Journal: Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J Date: 2021-03-15
Authors: Claudio F Feo; Giorgio C Ginesu; Alessandro Bellini; Giuseppe Cherchi; Antonio M Scanu; Maria Laura Cossu; Alessandro Fancellu; Alberto Porcu Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2017-07-25
Authors: Se Jin Ahn; Hyo-Cheol Kim; Jin Wook Chung; Sang Bu An; Yong Hu Yin; Hwan Jun Jae; Jae Hyung Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2012-04-17 Impact factor: 3.500