Cost-utility analysis comparing laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass has become an established treatment option for symptomatic aortoiliac obstructive disease at dedicated centers. Minimally invasive surgical techniques like laparoscopic surgery have often been shown to reduce expenses and increase patients' health-related quality of life. The main objective of our study was to measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs after totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a within trial analysis in a larger ongoing randomized controlled prospective multicenter trial, Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial. Fifty consecutive patients suffering from symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease suitable for aortobifemoral bypass surgery were randomized to either totally laparoscopic (n=25) or open surgical procedure (n=25). One patient dropped out of the study before surgery. We measured health-related quality of life using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire at 4 different time points, before surgery and for 6 months during follow-up. We calculated the QALYs gained by using the area under the curve for both groups. Costs were calculated based on prices for surgical equipment, vascular prosthesis and hospital stay. RESULTS: We found a significantly higher increase in QALYs after laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery, with a difference of 0.07 QALYs, (p=0.001) in favor of laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass. The total cost of surgery, equipment and hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery (9,953 €) was less than open surgery (17,260 €), (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass seems to be cost-effective compared with open surgery, due to an increase in QALYs and lower procedure-related costs.

Perioperative humoral stress response to laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery seems to reduce hormonal stress response to surgery, but has not previously been examined in major abdominal vascular surgery. Aortic cross-clamping time and operation time is known to be longer in the totally laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABF) as compared to open aortobifemoral bypass (OABF). The main objective of our study was to measure the hormonal stress response during surgery and aortic cross-clamping in patients undergoing a totally laparoscopic versus an open aortobifemoral bypass. This was a sub-study of a larger randomized controlled multicentre trial. Thirty consecutive patients with severe aortoiliac occlusive disease were randomized to either a laparoscopic (LABF) or an open (OABF) procedure. The surgical stress response was measured by perioperative monitoring of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), aldosterone, metanephrine and cortisol at eight different time-points. During surgery. there was an increase in all humoral stress markers in both groups. The analysis of covariance showed increased levels of cortisol and ACTH in open group at 24 h time-point as compared to the baseline and this difference was statistically significant between the two groups, which indicate an earlier return to baseline levels in the laparoscopic group. Results from the General Estimated Equations (GEE) model indicate that LABF generates a lower level of metanephrine and higher level of aldosterone as compared to OABF. In conclusion, although they have higher levels of ACTH, aldosterone and cortisol during surgery, the patients operated with a laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass achieve earlier hormonal homeostasis after surgery compared to open aortobifemoral bypass.

Comparison of the acute-phase response after laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been shown to reduce the inflammatory response related to a surgical procedure. The main objective of our study was to measure the inflammatory response in patients undergoing a totally laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery. This is the first randomized trial on subjects in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a substudy of a larger randomized controlled multicenter trial (Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial). Thirty consecutive patients with severe aortoiliac occlusive disease eligible for aortobifemoral bypass surgery were randomized to either a totally laparoscopic (n=14) or an open surgical procedure (n=16). The inflammatory response was measured by perioperative monitoring of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, and C-reactive protein (CRP) at six different time points. RESULTS: The inflammatory reaction caused by the laparoscopic procedure was reduced compared with open surgery. IL-6 was significantly lower after the laparoscopic procedure, measured by comparing area under the curve (AUC), and after adjusting for the confounding effect of coronary heart disease (P=0.010). The differences in serum levels of IL-8 and CRP did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In this substudy of a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass surgeries, we found a decreased perioperative inflammatory response after the laparoscopic procedure measured by comparing AUC for serum IL-6.