BACKGROUND: Considering the increasing evidence on the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH), their clinical outcomes and associated costs were herein evaluated compared to open (OMH). METHODS: Major contributors of perioperative expenses were considered. With respect to the occurrence of conversion, a primary intention-to-treat analysis including conversions in the LMH group (ITT-A) was performed. An additional per-protocol analysis excluding conversions (PP-A) was undertaken, with calculation of additional costs of conversion analysis. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five LMH and 61 OMH were included (14.5% conversion rate). At the ITT-A, LMH showed lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and morbidity (global p 0.037, moderate p 0.037), shorter hospital stay (p 0.035), and a lower need for intra- and postoperative red blood cells transfusions (p < 0.001), investigations (p 0.004), and antibiotics (p 0.002). The higher intraoperative expenses (+ 32.1%, p < 0.001) were offset by postoperative savings (- 27.2%, p 0.030), resulting in a global cost-neutrality of LMH (- 7.2%, p 0.807). At the PP-A, completed LMH showed also lower severe complications (p 0.042), interventional procedures (p 0.027), and readmission rates (p 0.031), and postoperative savings increased to - 71.3% (p 0.003) resulting in a 29.9% cost advantage of completed LMH (p 0.020). However, the mean additional cost of conversion was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Completed LMH exhibit a high potential treatment effect compared to OMH and are associated to significant cost savings. Despite some of these benefits may be jeopardized by conversion, a program of LMH can still provide considerable clinical benefits without cost disadvantage and appears worth to be implemented in high-volume centers.
BACKGROUND: Considering the increasing evidence on the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH), their clinical outcomes and associated costs were herein evaluated compared to open (OMH). METHODS: Major contributors of perioperative expenses were considered. With respect to the occurrence of conversion, a primary intention-to-treat analysis including conversions in the LMH group (ITT-A) was performed. An additional per-protocol analysis excluding conversions (PP-A) was undertaken, with calculation of additional costs of conversion analysis. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five LMH and 61 OMH were included (14.5% conversion rate). At the ITT-A, LMH showed lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and morbidity (global p 0.037, moderate p 0.037), shorter hospital stay (p 0.035), and a lower need for intra- and postoperative red blood cells transfusions (p < 0.001), investigations (p 0.004), and antibiotics (p 0.002). The higher intraoperative expenses (+ 32.1%, p < 0.001) were offset by postoperative savings (- 27.2%, p 0.030), resulting in a global cost-neutrality of LMH (- 7.2%, p 0.807). At the PP-A, completed LMH showed also lower severe complications (p 0.042), interventional procedures (p 0.027), and readmission rates (p 0.031), and postoperative savings increased to - 71.3% (p 0.003) resulting in a 29.9% cost advantage of completed LMH (p 0.020). However, the mean additional cost of conversion was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Completed LMH exhibit a high potential treatment effect compared to OMH and are associated to significant cost savings. Despite some of these benefits may be jeopardized by conversion, a program of LMH can still provide considerable clinical benefits without cost disadvantage and appears worth to be implemented in high-volume centers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conversion; Financial costs; Laparoscopic liver resection; Major hepatectomies
Authors: Rachel L Medbery; Tatiana S Chadid; John F Sweeney; Stuart J Knechtle; David A Kooby; Shishir K Maithel; Edward Lin; Juan M Sarmiento Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Francesco M Polignano; Aaron J Quyn; Rodrigo S M de Figueiredo; Nikola A Henderson; Christoph Kulli; Iain S Tait Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Moritz Koch; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Nuh N Rahbari; Rene Adam; Lorenzo Capussotti; Sheung Tat Fan; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Michael Crawford; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Mark Brooke-Smith; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Ronald P DeMatteo; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-02-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Mark C Halls; Federica Cipriani; Giammauro Berardi; Leonid Barkhatov; Panagiotis Lainas; Mohammed Alzoubi; Mathieu D'Hondt; Fernando Rotellar; Ibrahim Dagher; Luca Aldrighetti; Roberto I Troisi; Bjorn Edwin; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Wabitsch; A Kästner; P K Haber; L Feldbrügge; T Winklmann; S Werner; J Pratschke; Moritz Schmelzle Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 3.445
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
Authors: Anastasia Murtha-Lemekhova; Juri Fuchs; Miriam Teroerde; Ute Chiriac; Rosa Klotz; Daniel Hornuss; Jan Larmann; Markus A Weigand; Katrin Hoffmann Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-12