Chekan Edward, Moore Matthew, Hunter Tina D, Gunnarsson Candace
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA.
JSLS. 2013 Jan-Mar;17(1):30-45. doi: 10.4293/108680812X13517013317635.
This study compares hospital costs and clinical outcomes for conventional laparoscopic, single-port, and mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy from US hospitals.
Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years and undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with records in the Premier Hospital Database from 2009 through the second quarter of 2010. Patients were categorized into 3 groups-conventional laparoscopic, single port, or mini-laparoscopic-based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes and hospital charge descriptions for surgical tools used. A procedure was considered mini-laparoscopic if no single-port surgery products were identified in the charge master descriptions and the patient record showed that at least 1 product measuring 5 mm was used, not more than 1 product measuring <5 mm was used, and the measurements of the other products identified equaled >5 mm. Summary statistics were generated for all 3 groups. Multivariable analyses were performed on hospital costs and clinical outcomes. Models were adjusted for demographics, patient severity, comorbid conditions, and hospital characteristics.
In the outpatient setting, for single-port surgery, hospital costs were approximately $834 more than those for mini-laparoscopic surgery and $964 more than those for conventional laparoscopic surgery (P < .0001). Adverse events were significantly higher (P < .0001) for single-port surgery compared with mini-laparoscopic surgery (95% confidence interval for odds ratio, 1.38-2.68) and single-port surgery versus conventional surgery (95% confidence interval for odds ratio, 1.37-2.35). Mini-laparoscopic surgery hospital costs were significantly (P < .0001) lower than the costs for conventional surgery by $211, and there were no significant differences in adverse events.
These findings should inform practice patterns, treatment guidelines, and payor policy in managing cholecystectomy patients.
本研究比较了美国医院常规腹腔镜胆囊切除术、单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术和迷你腹腔镜胆囊切除术的医院成本及临床结局。
符合条件的患者年龄≥18岁,于2009年至2010年第二季度在Premier医院数据库中有腹腔镜胆囊切除术记录。根据疾病国际分类第九版和当前手术操作术语编码以及所使用手术工具的医院收费描述,将患者分为3组:常规腹腔镜组、单孔组或迷你腹腔镜组。如果收费主描述中未识别出单孔手术产品,且患者记录显示使用了至少1个尺寸为5mm的产品、不超过1个尺寸<5mm的产品且其他识别出的产品尺寸>5mm,则该手术被视为迷你腹腔镜手术。对所有3组进行汇总统计。对医院成本和临床结局进行多变量分析。模型针对人口统计学、患者严重程度、合并症和医院特征进行了调整。
在门诊环境中,对于单孔手术,医院成本比迷你腹腔镜手术高约834美元,比常规腹腔镜手术高964美元(P<.0001)。与迷你腹腔镜手术相比,单孔手术的不良事件显著更高(P<.0001)(优势比的95%置信区间为1.38 - 2.68),单孔手术与常规手术相比也是如此(优势比的95%置信区间为1.37 - 2.35)。迷你腹腔镜手术的医院成本比常规手术显著低211美元(P<.0001),且不良事件无显著差异。
这些发现应为胆囊切除术患者的临床实践模式、治疗指南和支付方政策提供参考。