BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) should not cost more or less than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: Retrospective cost data were collected from the accounting records of a single institution. A direct comparison of LC and SILC was conducted. Data on the SILC cases converted to LC were included. The total operating room (OR) cost (actual cost to the hospital for equipment, time, and personnel) and the total OR charges (total derived from the OR cost plus a margin to cover overhead costs beyond material costs) were examined. The total hospital charges (OR charges plus hospital charges accrued in the perioperative period) also were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, with p values less than 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Over a period of 19 months, 116 cases of minimally invasive cholecystectomy were evaluated. Of the 116 patients, 48 underwent LC during the first half of that period, and 68 patients underwent SILC during the second half of that period. Nine of the single-incision procedures were converted to traditional LC, for a 13% conversion rate. The groups were well matched from a demographics standpoint, with no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, or payment. Comparison of all attempted SILCs, including those converted, with all LCs showed no significant difference in cost category totals. A significant difference among all cost variables was found when SILCs were compared with SILCs that required conversion to LC. A significant difference among the cost variables also was found when LCs were compared with converted SILCs. CONCLUSION: The cost for SILC did not differ significantly from that for LC when standard materials were used and the duration of the procedure was considered. Converted cases were significantly more expensive than completed SILC and LC cases.
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) should not cost more or less than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: Retrospective cost data were collected from the accounting records of a single institution. A direct comparison of LC and SILC was conducted. Data on the SILC cases converted to LC were included. The total operating room (OR) cost (actual cost to the hospital for equipment, time, and personnel) and the total OR charges (total derived from the OR cost plus a margin to cover overhead costs beyond material costs) were examined. The total hospital charges (OR charges plus hospital charges accrued in the perioperative period) also were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, with p values less than 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Over a period of 19 months, 116 cases of minimally invasive cholecystectomy were evaluated. Of the 116 patients, 48 underwent LC during the first half of that period, and 68 patients underwent SILC during the second half of that period. Nine of the single-incision procedures were converted to traditional LC, for a 13% conversion rate. The groups were well matched from a demographics standpoint, with no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, or payment. Comparison of all attempted SILCs, including those converted, with all LCs showed no significant difference in cost category totals. A significant difference among all cost variables was found when SILCs were compared with SILCs that required conversion to LC. A significant difference among the cost variables also was found when LCs were compared with converted SILCs. CONCLUSION: The cost for SILC did not differ significantly from that for LC when standard materials were used and the duration of the procedure was considered. Converted cases were significantly more expensive than completed SILC and LC cases.
Authors: Steven E Hodgett; Jonathan M Hernandez; Connor A Morton; Sharona B Ross; Michael Albrink; Alexander S Rosemurgy Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-11-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ninh T Nguyen; Kevin M Reavis; Marcelo W Hinojosa; Brian R Smith; Samuel E Wilson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Cori-Ann M Hirai; Daniel Murariu; Matthew D Cooper; Andrew J Oishi; Steven D Nishida; Cedric Sf Lorenzo; Racquel S Bueno Journal: Hawaii J Med Public Health Date: 2013-12