BACKGROUND: Benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy are controversial, and the results of recent clinical studies have contradictory conclusions. We performed a cost analysis comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies to assess potential efficacy of the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: All patients operated on for suspected acute appendicitis at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) from January 1, 1991 through January 1, 1995 were analyzed. Potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach were examined in five major categories: hospital length of stay, total hospital charges, operative time, operating room charges, and postoperative complications. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of perforation for outcome analysis. RESULTS: There were 163 appendectomies performed in 82 men and 81 women. Twenty-seven (17%) patients had laparoscopic evaluation, of which 21 underwent attempted laparoscopic appendectomy. Among nonperforated patients, laparoscopic appendectomy did not reduce hospital stay compared with open appendectomy, but did lead to greater hospital charges ($7760 vs $5064; P < 0.001). Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group (104 vs 74 minutes; P < 0.001) compared with open appendectomies. Operating room charges for laparoscopic appendectomies exceeded charges for the open approach ($4740 vs $1870; P < 0.001). Complication rates were similar (laparoscopic, 19% vs open, 16%; NS). The false diagnostic rate for women was four times greater than for men among patients undergoing open appendectomy (31% vs 8%; P < 0.01). Patients with perforation undergoing a midline incision had a longer hospital stay (9.5 vs 5.9; P < 0.02) than patients operated on through a right lower quadrant incision. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, laparoscopic appendectomy, while safe, was more expensive and was not associated with better clinical outcome compared with open appendectomy patients.
BACKGROUND: Benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy are controversial, and the results of recent clinical studies have contradictory conclusions. We performed a cost analysis comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies to assess potential efficacy of the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: All patients operated on for suspected acute appendicitis at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) from January 1, 1991 through January 1, 1995 were analyzed. Potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach were examined in five major categories: hospital length of stay, total hospital charges, operative time, operating room charges, and postoperative complications. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of perforation for outcome analysis. RESULTS: There were 163 appendectomies performed in 82 men and 81 women. Twenty-seven (17%) patients had laparoscopic evaluation, of which 21 underwent attempted laparoscopic appendectomy. Among nonperforated patients, laparoscopic appendectomy did not reduce hospital stay compared with open appendectomy, but did lead to greater hospital charges ($7760 vs $5064; P < 0.001). Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group (104 vs 74 minutes; P < 0.001) compared with open appendectomies. Operating room charges for laparoscopic appendectomies exceeded charges for the open approach ($4740 vs $1870; P < 0.001). Complication rates were similar (laparoscopic, 19% vs open, 16%; NS). The false diagnostic rate for women was four times greater than for men among patients undergoing open appendectomy (31% vs 8%; P < 0.01). Patients with perforation undergoing a midline incision had a longer hospital stay (9.5 vs 5.9; P < 0.02) than patients operated on through a right lower quadrant incision. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, laparoscopic appendectomy, while safe, was more expensive and was not associated with better clinical outcome compared with open appendectomy patients.
Authors: Anne Andert; H P Alizai; C D Klink; N Neitzke; C Fitzner; C Heidenhain; A Kroh; U P Neumann; M Binnebösel Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: C K Enestvedt; S C Mayo; B S Diggs; M Mori; D A Austin; D K Shipley; B C Sheppard; K G Billingsley Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-05-10 Impact factor: 3.452