Sarah Lombardo1, Jenna S Rosenberg2, Jaewhan Kim3, Sarnai Erdene4, Orgoi Sergelen4, Jonathan Nellermoe2, Samuel R Finlayson2, Raymond R Price2. 1. Center for Global Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Electronic address: sarah.lombardo@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Center for Global Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Department of Economics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Department of Surgery, Mongolia National University of Medical Sciences, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard of care for biliary disease in developed countries. LC in resource-limited countries is increasing. This prospective, observational study evaluates costs, outcomes, and quality of life (QoL) associated with laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy (OC) in Mongolia. METHODS: Patient demographics, outcomes, and total payer and patient costs were elicited from a convenience sample of patients undergoing cholecystectomy at four urban and three rural hospitals (February 2016-January 2017). QoL was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively using the five-level EQ-5D instrument. Perioperative complications, surgical fees, and QoL scores were evaluated for LC versus OC. Multivariate regression models were generated to adjust for differences between these groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifteen cholecystectomies were included (LC 122, OC 93). LC patients were more likely to have attended college and have insurance. Preoperative symptoms were comparable between groups. Total complication rate was 21.8% (no difference between groups); LC patients had less superficial infections (0% versus 10.8%). Median hospital length of stay (HLOS) and days to return to work were shorter after LC. QoL improved after surgery for both groups. Mean total payer and patient costs were higher for LC, but not significant (P-value 0.126). After adjustment, LC had significantly less complications, shorter HLOS, fewer days to return to work, greater improvement in QoL scores, and no increase in cost. CONCLUSIONS: LC is safe and beneficial to patients with biliary disease in Mongolia, and cost effective from the patient's and payer's perspective. Although equipment costs for LC may be more expensive than OC, there are likely significant cost savings related to reduced HLOS, shorter time off work, fewer complications, and improved QoL.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard of care for biliary disease in developed countries. LC in resource-limited countries is increasing. This prospective, observational study evaluates costs, outcomes, and quality of life (QoL) associated with laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy (OC) in Mongolia. METHODS:Patient demographics, outcomes, and total payer and patient costs were elicited from a convenience sample of patients undergoing cholecystectomy at four urban and three rural hospitals (February 2016-January 2017). QoL was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively using the five-level EQ-5D instrument. Perioperative complications, surgical fees, and QoL scores were evaluated for LC versus OC. Multivariate regression models were generated to adjust for differences between these groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifteen cholecystectomies were included (LC 122, OC 93). LC patients were more likely to have attended college and have insurance. Preoperative symptoms were comparable between groups. Total complication rate was 21.8% (no difference between groups); LC patients had less superficial infections (0% versus 10.8%). Median hospital length of stay (HLOS) and days to return to work were shorter after LC. QoL improved after surgery for both groups. Mean total payer and patient costs were higher for LC, but not significant (P-value 0.126). After adjustment, LC had significantly less complications, shorter HLOS, fewer days to return to work, greater improvement in QoL scores, and no increase in cost. CONCLUSIONS: LC is safe and beneficial to patients with biliary disease in Mongolia, and cost effective from the patient's and payer's perspective. Although equipment costs for LC may be more expensive than OC, there are likely significant cost savings related to reduced HLOS, shorter time off work, fewer complications, and improved QoL.
Authors: Norma E Farrow; Sarah J Commander; Christopher R Reed; Jenna L Mueller; Aryaman Gupta; Amos H P Loh; John Sekabira; Tamara N Fitzgerald Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 4.584