G Paul Wright1, Alan T Davis2, Tracy J Koehler3, David E Scheeres4. 1. General Surgery Residency Program, Grand Rapids Medical Education Partners, Grand Rapids, MI; Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI. Electronic address: paul.wright@grmep.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI; Research Department, Grand Rapids Medical Education Partners, Grand Rapids, MI. 3. Research Department, Grand Rapids Medical Education Partners, Grand Rapids, MI. 4. General Surgery Residency Program, Grand Rapids Medical Education Partners, Grand Rapids, MI; Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI; Division of Surgical Specialties, Spectrum Health Medical Group, Grand Rapids, MI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer disease (perfPUD) has demonstrated comparable operative outcomes with an open approach though the cost-efficiency of this method has not been studied. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2007-2010). Patients who underwent operation for perfPUD were divided on the basis of laparoscopic or open approach. The primary outcome measures were hospital duration of stay, mortality, and total charges. RESULTS: A total of 5,361 patients with perfPUD were identified: 5,219 in the open group and 142 in the laparoscopic group. Patients in the laparoscopic group were younger (50.5 vs 60.0, P < .001) and had a lesser incidence at presentation of sepsis (8.5 vs 14.8%, P = .034) and shock (2.1 vs 7.7%, P = .012). On univariate analysis, the laparoscopic group had decreased duration of stay (7.0 vs 8.0 days, P < .001), lesser rates of mortality (3.5 vs 8.1%, P = .048), and were discharged to home more frequently (79.6 vs 68.1%, P = .025). Mean total charges were less in the laparoscopic group ($44,095 vs $52,055, P = .019). Multivariate analyses failed to show a difference between groups for any of the outcome variables. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic treatment of perfPUD is associated with equivalent costs and outcomes compared with the open technique when we corrected for presentation variables.
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer disease (perfPUD) has demonstrated comparable operative outcomes with an open approach though the cost-efficiency of this method has not been studied. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2007-2010). Patients who underwent operation for perfPUD were divided on the basis of laparoscopic or open approach. The primary outcome measures were hospital duration of stay, mortality, and total charges. RESULTS: A total of 5,361 patients with perfPUD were identified: 5,219 in the open group and 142 in the laparoscopic group. Patients in the laparoscopic group were younger (50.5 vs 60.0, P < .001) and had a lesser incidence at presentation of sepsis (8.5 vs 14.8%, P = .034) and shock (2.1 vs 7.7%, P = .012). On univariate analysis, the laparoscopic group had decreased duration of stay (7.0 vs 8.0 days, P < .001), lesser rates of mortality (3.5 vs 8.1%, P = .048), and were discharged to home more frequently (79.6 vs 68.1%, P = .025). Mean total charges were less in the laparoscopic group ($44,095 vs $52,055, P = .019). Multivariate analyses failed to show a difference between groups for any of the outcome variables. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic treatment of perfPUD is associated with equivalent costs and outcomes compared with the open technique when we corrected for presentation variables.
Authors: Rosa M Jimenez Rodriguez; Juan José Segura-Sampedro; Mercedes Flores-Cortés; Francisco López-Bernal; Cristobalina Martín; Verónica Pino Diaz; Felipe Pareja Ciuro; Javier Padillo Ruiz Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Kjetil Søreide; Kenneth Thorsen; Ewen M Harrison; Juliane Bingener; Morten H Møller; Michael Ohene-Yeboah; Jon Arne Søreide Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: André Pereira; Hugo Santos Sousa; Diana Gonçalves; Eduardo Lima da Costa; André Costa Pinho; Elisabete Barbosa; José Barbosa Journal: Minim Invasive Surg Date: 2021-05-12