Qinyu Chen1, Katiuscha Merath1, Fabio Bagante1,2, Ozgur Akgul1, Mary Dillhoff1, Jordan Cloyd1, Timothy M Pawlik3,4. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu. 4. Department of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, Health Services Management and Policy, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, 395 W. 12th Ave., Suite 670, Columbus, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become standard of care for many gastrointestinal surgical procedures. Despite possible clinical benefits, MIS may be underutilized in some populations. The aim of this study was to access the utilization of MIS among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic procedures and define clinical outcomes, as well as costs, of minimally invasive techniques compared with the conventional open approach. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic and liver procedures between 2013 and 2015. Primary outcomes of the analysis included perioperative clinical outcomes such as rates of complications, index hospitalization length-of-stay (LOS), failure-to-rescue, rates, and causes of 90-day readmission, as well as 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were Medicare payments for index hospitalization and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of MIS on clinical outcomes and health expenditures. RESULTS: A total of 13,716 (90.6%) patients underwent open resection, while MIS was performed in 1424 (9.4%) patients. LOS was shorter among patients undergoing MIS (mean 7.3 ± SD 7.3) versus open (mean 9.3 ± SD 9.1) surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of perioperative complications was lower following MIS (open 25.5%, n = 3492 vs. MIS 17.2%, n = 245) (p < 0.001). Rates of failure-to-rescue were similar among patients undergoing an open versus MIS pancreatic procedure (open 19.4%, n = 271 vs. MIS 13.4%, n = 17) (p = 0.09). In contrast, 90-day readmission (open 31.1%, n = 1630 vs. MIS 24.1%, n = 201, p < 0.001), as well as 90-day mortality (open 7.7%, n = 404 vs. MIS 4.2%, n = 35, p < 0.001) were lower among patients undergoing pancreatic resections via an MIS approach. In contrast, failure-to-rescue and readmission, as well as mortality, were all comparable among patients undergoing a liver resection, regardless as to whether the operation was performed open or via an MIS approach (all p > 0.05). Mean total payments for open pancreatic surgery were on average $1421 higher in the open versus MIS pancreatic group (p = 0.01); in contrast, there was no difference in the overall payment for hepatic resection (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The MIS approach was underutilized among patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures. MIS was associated with lower complication and readmission and shorter LOS, as well as comparable/slightly lower Medicare payments, compared with the open approach. The MIS approach should strongly be considered among older patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures.
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become standard of care for many gastrointestinal surgical procedures. Despite possible clinical benefits, MIS may be underutilized in some populations. The aim of this study was to access the utilization of MIS among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic procedures and define clinical outcomes, as well as costs, of minimally invasive techniques compared with the conventional open approach. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic and liver procedures between 2013 and 2015. Primary outcomes of the analysis included perioperative clinical outcomes such as rates of complications, index hospitalization length-of-stay (LOS), failure-to-rescue, rates, and causes of 90-day readmission, as well as 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were Medicare payments for index hospitalization and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of MIS on clinical outcomes and health expenditures. RESULTS: A total of 13,716 (90.6%) patients underwent open resection, while MIS was performed in 1424 (9.4%) patients. LOS was shorter among patients undergoing MIS (mean 7.3 ± SD 7.3) versus open (mean 9.3 ± SD 9.1) surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of perioperative complications was lower following MIS (open 25.5%, n = 3492 vs. MIS 17.2%, n = 245) (p < 0.001). Rates of failure-to-rescue were similar among patients undergoing an open versus MIS pancreatic procedure (open 19.4%, n = 271 vs. MIS 13.4%, n = 17) (p = 0.09). In contrast, 90-day readmission (open 31.1%, n = 1630 vs. MIS 24.1%, n = 201, p < 0.001), as well as 90-day mortality (open 7.7%, n = 404 vs. MIS 4.2%, n = 35, p < 0.001) were lower among patients undergoing pancreatic resections via an MIS approach. In contrast, failure-to-rescue and readmission, as well as mortality, were all comparable among patients undergoing a liver resection, regardless as to whether the operation was performed open or via an MIS approach (all p > 0.05). Mean total payments for open pancreatic surgery were on average $1421 higher in the open versus MIS pancreatic group (p = 0.01); in contrast, there was no difference in the overall payment for hepatic resection (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The MIS approach was underutilized among patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures. MIS was associated with lower complication and readmission and shorter LOS, as well as comparable/slightly lower Medicare payments, compared with the open approach. The MIS approach should strongly be considered among older patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures.
Authors: Sandeep S Vijan; Kamran A Ahmed; William S Harmsen; Florencia G Que; Kaye M Reid-Lombardo; David M Nagorney; John H Donohue; Michael B Farnell; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-07
Authors: Giorgio Gandaglia; Khurshid R Ghani; Akshay Sood; Jessica R Meyers; Jesse D Sammon; Marianne Schmid; Briony Varda; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Maxine Sun; Mani Menon; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Ki Byung Song; Song Cheol Kim; Jae Berm Park; Young Hoon Kim; Young Soo Jung; Myung-Hwan Kim; Sung-Koo Lee; Dong-Wan Seo; Sang Soo Lee; Do Hyun Park; Duck Jong Han Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Qinyu Chen; Katiuscha Merath; Griffin Olsen; Fabio Bagante; Jay J Idrees; Ozgur Akgul; Jordan Cloyd; Carl Schmidt; Mary Dillhoff; Eliza W Beal; Susan White; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kristopher P Croome; Michael B Farnell; Florencia G Que; K Marie Reid-Lombardo; Mark J Truty; David M Nagorney; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Tsafrir Vanounou; Jennifer L Steel; Kevin Tri Nguyen; Allan Tsung; J Wallis Marsh; David A Geller; T Clark Gamblin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ioannis A Ziogas; Alexandros P Evangeliou; Konstantinos S Mylonas; Dimitrios I Athanasiadis; Panagiotis Cherouveim; David A Geller; Richard D Schulick; Sophoclis P Alexopoulos; Georgios Tsoulfas Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-19