Brett Doble1, Richard Welbourn2, Nicholas Carter3, James Byrne4, Chris A Rogers5, Jane M Blazeby6, Sarah Wordsworth7. 1. Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. brett.doble@duke-nus.edu.sg. 2. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and Bariatric Surgery, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, TA1 5DA, UK. 3. Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK. 4. Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. 5. Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK. 6. Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. 7. Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in comparing the effectiveness and costs of alternative forms of bariatric surgery. We aimed to examine the per-patient, procedural costs of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Multi-centre (two National Health Service; NHS and one private hospital) micro-costing, using a time-and-motion study. Prospective collection of surgery times, staff quantities, equipment, instruments and consumables for 12 patients (four RYGB, five SG, three AGB) from patients' first surgeon interaction on the day of surgery to departure from the theatre recovery area. Costs were attached to quantities and mean costs compared. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed the impact of varying surgery inputs and consideration of additional plausible factors respectively on total costs. RESULTS: Mean procedural costs were £5002 for RYGB, £4306 for SG and £2527 for AGB. Varying staff seniority or altering procedure times had small impacts on costs (± 4-6%). Reducing prices of consumables by 20% reduced costs by 10-13%. Accounting for differences in surgical technique by altering the number of staple reloads used impacted costs by ± 7-10%. Adjusted total costs from scenario analyses were similar to NHS tariffs for RYGB and SG (difference of £51 and -£119 respectively) but were much lower for AGB (difference of £1982). CONCLUSIONS: These detailed costs will allow for more precise reimbursement of bariatric surgery and support comprehensive assessments of cost-effectiveness. Additional work to investigate costs of post-surgical care, re-operations and life-long support received by patients following surgery is required.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in comparing the effectiveness and costs of alternative forms of bariatric surgery. We aimed to examine the per-patient, procedural costs of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Multi-centre (two National Health Service; NHS and one private hospital) micro-costing, using a time-and-motion study. Prospective collection of surgery times, staff quantities, equipment, instruments and consumables for 12 patients (four RYGB, five SG, three AGB) from patients' first surgeon interaction on the day of surgery to departure from the theatre recovery area. Costs were attached to quantities and mean costs compared. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed the impact of varying surgery inputs and consideration of additional plausible factors respectively on total costs. RESULTS: Mean procedural costs were £5002 for RYGB, £4306 for SG and £2527 for AGB. Varying staff seniority or altering procedure times had small impacts on costs (± 4-6%). Reducing prices of consumables by 20% reduced costs by 10-13%. Accounting for differences in surgical technique by altering the number of staple reloads used impacted costs by ± 7-10%. Adjusted total costs from scenario analyses were similar to NHS tariffs for RYGB and SG (difference of £51 and -£119 respectively) but were much lower for AGB (difference of £1982). CONCLUSIONS: These detailed costs will allow for more precise reimbursement of bariatric surgery and support comprehensive assessments of cost-effectiveness. Additional work to investigate costs of post-surgical care, re-operations and life-long support received by patients following surgery is required.
Authors: Scott Kizy; Cyrus Jahansouz; Michael C Downey; Nathanael Hevelone; Sayeed Ikramuddin; Daniel Leslie Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: C A Rogers; B C Reeves; J Byrne; J L Donovan; G Mazza; S Paramasivan; R C Andrews; S Wordsworth; J Thompson; J M Blazeby; R Welbourn Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Tingting Wu; Koen B Pouwels; Richard Welbourn; Sarah Wordsworth; Seamus Kent; Carlos K H Wong Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Jacqueline A Murtha; Dillon C Svoboda; Natalie Liu; Morgan K Johnson; Manasa Venkatesh; Jacob A Greenberg; Anne O Lidor; Luke M Funk Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 1.766