Endoloops in laparoscopic appendicectomy: A retrospective, cost effectiveness analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Over 50,000 appendicectomies are performed in the UK annually. Despite this highvolume. status, and the endoloop being commonly employed, there is a scarcity of literature studying differences in outcomes depending on numbers used.The aim of this study was to investigate whether a significant difference in complication rate exists where different numbers of endoloop ligatures have been applied to the appendiceal base during laparoscopic appendicectomy, and to analyse for potential cost saving.Methods
We performed a retrospective analysis of appendicectomies at our centre in one year, providing a sample of 254 patients. Each was followed up for complications in the 30 days post discharge and graded using the Clavien-Dindo system. Our null hypothesis of no difference in complication rate was tested using Fisher's exact test.Results
Of 254 patients, 59 were excluded due to open approach, non-endoloop method, or lack of available record, leaving a population of 195. The result of the two-tailed P value equalled 1.000, indicating no statistically significant difference in complication rate whether one or two endoloops were used. An endoloop costs £13.59. If the 62 cases in which 2 endoloops were used to secure the base had utilised a single endoloop, this would amount to a saving of £842.58.Conclusion
Our study set out to assess whether the complication rate differs in cases where one or two endoloops have been applied. Retrospective statistical analysis found no significant difference between groups. Therefore, we recommend use of one endoloop to secure the base in laparoscopic appendicectomy.
SUBMITTER: Sheen JRC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8134709 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We sought to determine if laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD).Hospital cost data, discharge disposition, readmission rates, and readmission costs from periampullary cancer patient cohorts of LPD and OPD were compared. The surgical cohorts over a 40-month period were clinically similar, consisting of 52 and 50 patients in the LPD and OPD groups, respectively.The total operating room costs were higher in the LPD group as compared to the OPD group (median US$12,290 vs US$11,299; P = 0.05) due to increased costs for laparoscopic equipment and regional nerve blocks (P ? 0.0001). Although hospital length of stay was shorter in the LPD group (median 7 vs 8 days; P = 0.025), the average hospital cost was not significantly decreased compared to the OPD group (median $28,496 vs $28,623). Surgery-related readmission rates and associated costs did not differ between groups. Compared to OPD patients, significantly more LPD patients were discharged directly home rather than to other healthcare facilities (88% vs 72%; P = 0.047).For the index hospitalization, the cost of LPD is equivalent to OPD. Total episode-of-care costs may favor LPD via reduced post-hospital needs for skilled nursing and rehabilitation.
| S-EPMC6032973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ambulatory surgery is an efficient, safe and widely performed procedure; this study would shows the advantages of the ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure from the point of view of patients and the Hospital/National Health System. Materials and Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study including 288 patients who underwent laparoscopic-cholecystectomy at **** from January 2016 to July 2018. Ambulatory LC were compared to well-matched inpatient procedures performed in the same study period. The primary endpoints was the 30-day readmission rate. Secondary endpoints were the discharge rate in the ambulatory group, the post-operative complications rate and cost effectiveness. Results: 120/288 (41.7%) patients underwent ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thirty-two (26.7%) patients who underwent ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy had major preoperative comorbidities and 35 (29.2%) had undergone prior abdominal surgery. The readmission rates for ambulatory patients and inpatients were 0.8% and 1.7% (p = 0.56), respectively; 104 (86.7%) ambulatory patients were discharged successfully on the same day. The two groups showed the same post-operative complication rate (p = 0.40). Ambulatory procedures resulted in related cost savings of more than 300% for the hospital and a remarkable financial benefit for the National Italian Healthcare System, accounting for savings exceeding € 27 000 per year. Conclusions: Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and cost effective. Since a third of ambulatory patients showed comorbidity or previous abdominal surgery, we believe that this procedure may be performed safely in a tertiary HPB centre, even in complex patients.
| S-EPMC7240280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Appendectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in emergency surgery. Because of lack of consensus about the most appropriate technique, appendectomy is still being performed by both open (OA) and laparoscopic (LA) methods. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to compare the laparoscopic approach and the conventional technique in the treatment of acute appendicitis.Retrospectively collected data from 593 consecutive patients with acute appendicitis were studied. These comprised 310 patients who underwent conventional appendectomy and 283 patients treated laparoscopically. The two groups were compared for operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate, return to normal activity and cost.Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter hospital stay (2.7?±?2.5 days in LA and 1.4?±?0.6 days in OA), with a less need for analgesia and with a faster return to daily activities (11.5?±?3.1 days in LA and 16.1?±?3.3 in OA). Operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (31.36?±?11.13 min in OA and 54.9?±?14.2 in LA). Total number of complications was less in the LA group with a significantly lower incidence of wound infection (1.4 % vs 10.6 %, P?<0.001). The total cost of treatment was higher by 150 € in the laparoscopic group.The laparoscopic approach is a safe and efficient operative procedure in appendectomy and it provides clinically beneficial advantages over open method (including shorter hospital stay, decreased need for postoperative analgesia, early food tolerance, earlier return to work, lower rate of wound infection) against only marginally higher hospital costs.NCT02867072 Registered 10 August 2016. Retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC5006397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) for cancer is associated with good perioperative outcomes and superior quality of life compared with the open approach, albeit at higher cost. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two approaches.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis between LSG and open subtotal gastrectomy (OSG) for gastric cancer was performed using a decision-tree cohort model with a healthcare system perspective and a 12-month time horizon. Model inputs were informed by a meta-analysis of relevant literature, with costs represented in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A secondary analysis was conducted using inputs extracted solely from European and North American studies. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsIn the base-case model, costs of LSG were $935 (€565) greater than those of OSG, with an incremental gain of 0·050 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $18 846 (€11 398) per additional QALY gained from LSG. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to changes in postoperative utility, operating theatre and equipment costs, as well as duration of surgery and hospital stay. PSA showed that the likelihood of LSG being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 (€30 240) per QALY and $100 000 (€60 480) per QALY was 64 and 68 per cent respectively. Secondary analysis using European and North American clinical inputs resulted in LSG being dominant (cheaper and more effective) over OSG, largely due to reduced length of stay after LSG.ConclusionIn this decision analysis model, LSG was cost-effective compared with OSG for gastric cancer.
| S-EPMC7528510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore the updated evaluation about the obstetrical and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) for pregnancy appendicitis compared with open appendicectomy (OA). Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to screen eligible studies up to December 2020. Only clinical researches, no < 10 cases for LA and OA group were included. Twenty retrospective studies with 7,248 pregnant women, evaluating LA and OA in surgical and obstetrical outcomes, were included. The weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI and odds ratio (OR) was used to compare continuous and dichotomous variables. It seems LA was connected with significantly shorter hospital time and lower wound infection [mean difference (MD), -0.57 days; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.18; p = 0.004 and OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.62; p = 0.0005, respectively]. The incidence of fetal loss after LA was higher than OA (OR,1.93; 95% CI, 1.39-2.69; p < 0.0001). It was almost similar in the rate of preterm delivery (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.34; p = 0.40) and other perioperative and obstetrical complications (p > 0.05). Our results indicated that the occurrence of fetal loss after LA should not be ignored. Caution, skillful operation, and thoroughly informed consent about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopy are necessary. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier: CRD42021233150.
| S-EPMC8495069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study reports economic evaluation of mesh fixation in open and laparoscopic hernia repair from a prospective real-world cohort study, using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA).MethodsA prospective real-world cohort study was conducted in two university-based hospitals in Thailand from November 2018 to 2019. Patient data on hernia features, operative approaches, clinical outcomes, associated cost data, and quality of life were collected. Models were used to determine each group's treatment effect, potential outcome means, and average treatment effects. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to evaluate the incremental risk of hernia recurrences.ResultsThe 261 patients in this study were divided into six groups: laparoscopic with tack (LT, n = 47), glue (LG, n = 26), and self-gripping mesh (LSG, n = 30), and open with suture (OS, n = 117), glue (OG, n = 18), and self-gripping mesh (OSG, n = 23). Hernia recurrence was most common in LSG. The mean utility score was highest in OG and OSG (both 0.99). Treatment costs were generally higher for laparoscopic than open procedures. The cost-effectiveness plane for utility and hernia recurrence identified LSG as least cost effective. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves identified OG as having the highest probability of being cost effective at willingness to pay levels between $0 and $3,300, followed by OSG.ConclusionGiven the similarity of hernia recurrence among all major procedures, the cost of surgery may impact the decision. According to our findings, open hernia repair with adhesive or self-gripping mesh appears most cost-effective.
| S-EPMC9450344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic appendicectomy has gained wide acceptance as an alternative to open appendicectomy during pregnancy. However, data regarding the safety and optimal surgical approach to appendicitis in pregnancy are still controversial.MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy in pregnancy identified using PubMed and Scopus search engines from January 1990 to July 2011. Two reviewers independently extracted data on fetal loss, preterm delivery, wound infection, duration of operation, hospital stay, Apgar score and birth weight between laparoscopic and open appendicectomy groups.ResultsEleven studies with a total of 3415 women (599 in laparoscopic and 2816 in open group) were included in the analysis. Fetal loss was statistically significantly worse in those who underwent laparoscopy compared with open appendicectomy; the pooled relative risk (RR) was 1·91 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·31 to 2·77) without heterogeneity. The pooled RR for preterm labour was 1·44 (0·68 to 3·06), but this risk was not statistically significant. The mean difference in length of hospital stay was - 0·49 (-1·76 to - 0·78) days, but this was not clinically significant. No significant difference was found for wound infection, birth weight, duration of operation or Apgar score.ConclusionThe available low-grade evidence suggests that laparoscopic appendicectomy in pregnant women might be associated with a greater risk of fetal loss.
| S-EPMC3494303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFollowing a 2014 safety warning (that laparoscopic power morcellation may increase tumor dissemination if patients have occult uterine cancer), hysterectomy practice shifted from laparoscopic to abdominal approach. This avoided morcellating occult cancer, but increased perioperative complications. To inform the national impact of this practice change, we examined the cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy practice in the postwarning period, in comparison to counterfactual hysterectomy practice had there been no morcellation warning.Materials and methodsWe constructed a decision tree model to simulate relevant outcomes over the lifetime of patients in the national population undergoing hysterectomy for presumed benign indications. The model accounted for both hysterectomy- and occult cancer-related outcomes. Probability-, cost-, and utility weight-related input parameters were derived from analysis of the State Inpatient Databases, State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases, data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System and New York State Cancer Registry, and published literature.ResultsWith an estimated national sample of 353,567 adult women, base case analysis showed that changes in hysterectomy practice after the morcellation warning led to a net gain of 867.15 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), but an increase of $19.54 million in costs (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $22,537/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the practice changes were cost-effective in 54.0% of the simulations when evaluated at a threshold of $50,000/QALY, which increased to 70.9% when evaluated at a threshold of $200,000/QALY.ConclusionHysterectomy practice changes induced by the morcellation warning are expected to be cost-effective, but uncertainty in parameter values may affect the cost-effectiveness results.
| S-EPMC8994439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTraditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis.MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.ResultsLA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient.ConclusionsLA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.
| S-EPMC8194214 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRobotic cholecystectomy (RC) has shown promising outcomes in multiple studies when compared with the gold standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The objective of this study is to compare the postoperative surgical outcomes and cost in patients undergoing RC versus LC.MethodsStudies reporting postoperative outcomes and costs in patients undergoing RC versus LC were selected from medical electronic databases and analysis was conducted by the values of systematic review on the statistical software RevMan version 5.ResultsSix trials on 1,013 affected individuals for post-operative outcomes and cost comparison were used. Random effect model analysis was used in the analysis. Duration of operation (mean difference: -10.23, 95% CI: -16.23 to -4.22, Z=3.34, P=0.0008) was shorter in the LC group with moderate heterogeneity. Bile leak (odds ratio: 3.34, 95% CI: 0.85 to 13.03, Z=1.73, P=0.08) and no heterogeneity was seen, Postoperative complications (odds ratio: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.50 to 4.46, Z=0.72, P=0.47) with moderate heterogeneity. Both were statistically similar. LC had reduced cost (standardised mean difference: -7.42, 95% CI: -13.10 to -1.74, Z=2.56, P=0.01) with significant heterogeneity.ConclusionsRC failed to prove any clinical advantage over LC for postoperative outcomes including longer duration of operation moreover LC was more cost effective. Due to the paucity of randomised control trial (RCT) and significant heterogeneity, a major multicentre RCT is required to strengthen and validate the findings.
| S-EPMC10838610 | biostudies-literature