A retrospective cohort study of intra-corporeal versus extra-corporeal anastomosis for right hemicolectomy with cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare outcomes and cost effectiveness of extra-corporeal anastomosis (ECA) versus intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme data. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from January 2018 to December 2022 were identified. Non-cancer diagnoses, emergency procedures or synchronous resection of other organs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival and hospitalisation costs were compared. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients (175 ECA, 48 ICA) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts exhibited comparable baseline patient, comorbidity, and tumour characteristics. Distribution of pathological TMN stage, tumour largest dimension, total lymph node harvest and resection margin lengths were statistically similar. ICA was associated with a longer median operative duration compared with ECA (255 min vs. 220 min, P < 0.001). There was a quicker time to gastrointestinal recovery, with a shorter median hospital stay in the ICA group (4.0 versus 5.0 days, P = 0.001). Overall complication rates were comparable. ICA was associated with a higher surgical procedure cost (£6301.57 versus £4998.52, P < 0.001), but lower costs for ward accommodation (£1679.05 versus £2420.15, P = 0.001) and treatment (£3774.55 versus £4895.14, P = 0.009), with a 4.5% reduced overall cost compared with ECA. The ICER of -£3323.58 showed ICA to be more cost effective than ECA, across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: ICA in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is associated with quicker post-operative recovery and may be more cost effective compared with ECA, despite increased operative costs.

Major Metropolitan Area COVID-19 - Positive Patients Undergoing Emergency and Elective Orthopaedic Surgeries: A Case-matched Control Study.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected surgical management in Orthopaedics. This study explores the effect of COVID-19-positive patients on time to surgery from admission, total time spent in preoperative preparation, costs of orthopaedic care, and inpatient days in COVID-19-positive patients. The authors' case-matched study was based on the surgeon, procedure type, and patient demographics. The authors reviewed 58 cases, 23 males and 35 females. The results for the COVID-19-positive and -negative groups are time to admission (362.9; 388.4), time in preparation (127.8; 122.3), inpatient days to surgery (0.2; 0.2), and orthopaedic cost ($81,938; $86,352). With available numbers, no significant difference could be detected for inpatient days until surgery, any associated time to surgery, or orthopaedic costs for operating on COVID-19-positive patients during the pandemic. Perceived increased time and cost of care of COVID-19-positive patients were not proven in this study. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 33(1):014-016, 2024).

The cost of keeping patients waiting: retrospective treatment-control study of additional healthcare utilisation for UK patients awaiting elective treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Long waiting times for elective hospital treatments are common in many countries. This study seeks to address a deficit in the literature concerning the effect of long waits on the wider consumption of healthcare resources. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective treatment-control study in a healthcare system in South West England from 15 June 2021 to 15 December 2021. We compared weekly contacts with health services of patients waiting over 18 weeks for treatment ('Treatments') and people not on a waiting list ('Controls'). Controls were matched to Treatments based on age, sex, deprivation and multimorbidity. Treatments were stratified by the clinical specialty of the awaited hospital treatment, with healthcare usage assessed over various healthcare settings. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed whether there was an increase in healthcare utilisation and bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the magnitude of any differences. RESULTS: A total of 44,616 patients were waiting over 18 weeks (the constitutional target in England) for treatment during the study period. There was an increase (p < 0.0004) in healthcare utilisation for all specialties. Patients in the Cardiothoracic Surgery specialty had the largest increase, with 17.9 [interquartile-range: 4.3, 33.8] additional contacts with secondary care and 17.3 [-1.1, 34.1] additional prescriptions per year. CONCLUSION: People waiting for treatment consume higher levels of healthcare than comparable individuals not on a waiting list. These findings are relevant for clinicians and managers in better understanding patient need and reducing harm. Results also highlight the possible 'false economy' in failing to promptly resolve long elective waits.

Utilization of minimally invasive colectomy at safety-net hospitals in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Prior literature has reported inferior surgical outcomes and reduced access to minimally invasive procedures at safety-net hospitals. However, this relationship has not yet been elucidated for elective colectomy. We sought to characterize the association between safety-net hospitals and likelihood of minimally invasive resection, perioperative outcomes, and costs. METHODS: All adult (≥18 years) hospitalization records entailing elective colectomy were identified in the 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample. Centers in the top quartile of safety-net burden were considered safety-net hospitals (others: non-safety-net hospitals). Multivariable regression models were developed to assess the impact of safety-net hospitals status on key outcomes. RESULTS: Of ∼532,640 patients, 95,570 (17.9%) were treated at safety-net hospitals. The safety-net hospitals cohort was younger and more often of Black race or Hispanic ethnicity. After adjustment, care at safety-net hospitals remained independently associated with reduced odds of minimally invasive surgery (adjusted odds ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.87-0.97). The interaction between safety-net hospital status and race was significant, such that Black race remained linked with lower odds of minimally invasive surgery at safety-net hospitals (reference: White race). Additionally, safety-net hospitals was associated with greater likelihood of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.34, confidence interval 1.04-1.74) and any perioperative complication (adjusted odds ratio 1.15, confidence interval 1.08-1.22), as well as increased length of stay (ß+0.26 days, confidence interval 0.17-0.35) and costs (ß+$2,510, confidence interval 2,020-3,000). CONCLUSION: Care at safety-net hospitals was linked with lower odds of minimally invasive colectomy, as well as greater complications and costs. Black patients treated at safety-net hospitals demonstrated reduced likelihood of minimally invasive surgery, relative to White patients. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the root causes of these disparities in care.

The effect of a bundle intervention for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology procedures on same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs.

Cancellations within 24 h of planned elective surgical procedures reduce operating theatre efficiency, add unnecessary costs and negatively affect patient experience. We implemented a bundle intervention that aimed to reduce same-day case cancellations. This consisted of communication tools to improve patient engagement and new screening instruments (automated estimation of ASA physical status and case cancellation risk score plus four screening questions) to identify patients in advance (ideally before case booking) who needed comprehensive pre-operative risk stratification. We studied patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery with the otorhinolaryngology service at a single centre from April 2021 to December 2022. Multivariable logistic regression and interrupted time-series analyses were used to analyse the effects of this intervention on case cancellations within 24 h and costs. We analysed 1548 consecutive scheduled cases. Cancellation within 24 h occurred in 114 of 929 (12.3%) cases pre-intervention and 52 of 619 (8.4%) cases post-intervention. The cancellation rate decreased by 2.7% (95%CI 1.6-3.7%, p < 0.01) during the first month, followed by a monthly decrease of 0.2% (95%CI 0.1-0.4%, p < 0.01). This resulted in an estimated $150,200 (£118,755; €138,370) or 35.3% cost saving (p < 0.01). Median (IQR [range]) number of days between case scheduling and day of surgery decreased from 34 (21-61 [0-288]) pre-intervention to 31 (20-51 [1-250]) post-intervention (p < 0.01). Patient engagement via the electronic health record patient portal or text messaging increased from 75.9% at baseline to 90.8% (p < 0.01) post-intervention. The primary reason for case cancellation was patients' missed appointment on the day of surgery, which decreased from 7.2% pre-intervention to 4.5% post-intervention (p = 0.03). An anaesthetist-driven, clinical informatics-based bundle intervention decreases same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs in patients scheduled for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology surgery.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden With Elective Orthopaedic Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting. METHODS: This study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate. RESULTS: In total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA. CONCLUSION: Among commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.

Factors Associated With High Resource Use in Elective Adult Cardiac Surgery From 2005 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Lack of consensus remains about factors that may be associated with high resource use (HRU) in adult cardiac surgical patients. This study aimed to identify patient-related, hospital, and perioperative characteristics associated with HRU admissions involving elective cardiac operations. METHODS: Data from the National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft, valve replacement, and valve repair operations between 2005 and 2016. Admissions with HRU were defined as those in the highest decile for total hospital costs. Multivariable regressions were used to identify factors associated with HRU. RESULTS: An estimated 1,750,253 hospitalizations coded for elective cardiac operations. The median hospitalization cost was $34,700 (interquartile range, $26,800- to $47,100), with the HRU (N = 175,025) cutoff at $66,029. Although HRU patients comprised 10% of admissions, they accounted for 25% of cumulative costs. On multivariable regression, patient-related characteristics predictive of HRU included female sex, older age, higher comorbidity burden, non-White race, and highest income quartile. Hospital factors associated with HRU were low-volume hospitals for both coronary artery bypass graft and valvular operations. Among postoperative outcomes, mortality, infectious complications, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use, and hospitalization for more than 8 days were associated with greater odds of HRU. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study of elective cardiac surgical patients, several important patient-related and hospital factors, including patients' race, comorbidities, postoperative infectious complications, and low hospital operative volume were identified as predictors of HRU. These highly predictive factors may be used for benchmarking purposes and improvement in surgical planning.

Patient selection in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model.

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program induces participating hospitals to (1) preferentially select lower risk patients, (2) reduce 90-day episode-of-care costs, (3) improve quality of care, and (4) achieve greater cost reduction during its second year, when downside financial risk was applied. DATA SOURCES: We identified beneficiaries of age 65 years or older undergoing hip or knee joint replacement in the 100% sample of Medicare fee-for-service inpatient (Part A) claims from January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017. Cases were linked to subsequent outpatient, Part B, home health agency, and skilled nursing facility claims, as well as publicly available participation status for CJR. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the effect of CJR for hospitals in the 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) selected to participate in CJR (785 hospitals), compared to those in 104 non-CJR MSAs (962 hospitals; maintaining fee-for-service). A difference-in-differences approach was used to detect patient selection, as well as to compare 90-day episode-of-care costs and quality of care between CJR and non-CJR hospitals over the first two performance years. DATA COLLECTION: We excluded 172 hospitals from our analysis due to their preexisting BPCI participation. We focused on elective admissions in the main analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: While reductions in 90-day episode-of-care costs were greater among CJR hospitals (-$902, 95% CI: -$1305, -$499), largely driven by a 16.8% (p < 0.01) decline in 90-day spending in skilled nursing facilities, CJR hospitals significantly reduced the 90-day readmission rate (-3.9%; p < 0.05) and preferentially avoided patients aged 85 years or older (-5.9%; p < 0.01) and Black (-7.0%; p < 0.01). Cost reduction was greater in 2017 than in 2016, corresponding to the start of downside risk. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in CJR was associated with a modest cost reduction and a reduction in 90-day readmission rates; however, we also observed evidence of preferential avoidance of older patients perceived as being higher risk among CJR hospitals.

Elective versus nonelective brain tumor resections: a 5-year propensity score matching cost comparison analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Elective surgical cases generally have lower costs, higher profit margins, and better outcomes than nonelective cases. Investigating the differences in cost and profit between elective and nonelective cases would help hospitals in planning strategies to withstand financial losses due to potential pandemics. The authors sought to evaluate the exact cost and profit margin differences between elective and nonelective supratentorial tumor resections at a single institution. METHODS: The authors collected economic analysis data in all patients who underwent supratentorial tumor resection at their institution between January 2014 and December 2018. The patients were grouped into elective and nonelective cases. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 143 elective cases and 232 nonelective cases over the 5 years. Patients in the majority of elective cases had private insurance and in the majority of nonelective cases the patients had Medicare/Medicaid (p < 0.01). The total charges were significantly lower for elective cases ($168,800.12) compared to nonelective cases ($254,839.30, p < 0.01). The profit margins were almost 6 times higher for elective than for nonelective cases ($13,025.28 vs $2,128.01, p = 0.04). After propensity score matching, there was still a significant difference between total charges and total cost. CONCLUSIONS: Elective supratentorial tumor resections were associated with significantly lower costs with shorter lengths of stay while also being roughly 6 times more profitable than nonelective cases. These findings may help future planning for hospital strategies to survive financial losses during future pandemics that require widespread cancellation of elective cases.

Nationwide Readmissions Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MISVHR) has been performed for almost 30 years; recently, there has been an accelerated adoption of the robotic platform leading to renewed comparisons to open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). The present study evaluates patterns and outcomes of readmissions for MISVHR and OVHR patients. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was queried for patients undergoing OVHR and MISVHR from 2016 to 2018. Demographic characteristics, complications, and 90-day readmissions were determined. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) vs laparoscopic hernia repair (LVHR). Standard statistical methods and logistic regression were used. RESULTS: Over the 3-year period, there were 25 795 MISVHR and 180 635 OVHR admissions. Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair was associated with a lower rate of 90-day readmission (11.3% vs 17.3%, P < .01), length of stay (LOS) (4.0 vs 7.9 days, P < .01), and hospital charges ($68,240 ± 75 680 vs $87,701 ± 73 165, P < .01), which remained true when elective and non-elective repairs were evaluated independently. Postoperative infection was the most common reason for readmission but was less common in the MISVHR group (8.4% vs 16.8%, P < .01). Robotic ventral hernia repair increased over the 3-year period and was associated with decreased LOS (3.7 vs 4.1 days, P < .01) and comparable readmissions (11.3% vs 11.2%, P = .74) to LVHR, but was nearly $20,000 more expensive. In logistic regression, OVHR, non-elective operation, urban-teaching hospital, increased LOS, comorbidities, and payer type were predictive of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Open ventral hernia repair was associated with increased LOS and increased readmissions compared to MISVHR. Robotic ventral hernia repair had comparable readmissions and decreased LOS to LVHR, but it was more expensive.

Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the quality of life and cost effectiveness between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in young patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: This was a single-center, observational, and retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with AAA, who were <70 years old and underwent EVAR or OSR between January 2012 and October 2016. Only patients with aortic morphology that was suitable for EVAR were enrolled. Data on the complication rates, medical expenses, and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were collected, and the cost per QALY at three years was compared. RESULTS: Among 90 patients with aortic morphology who were eligible for EVAR, 37 and 53 patients underwent EVAR and OSR, respectively. No significant differences were observed in perioperative cardiovascular events and death between the two groups. However, during the follow-up period, patients undergoing OSR showed a significantly lower complication rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.11; P = .021). From the three-year cost-effectiveness analysis, the total sum of costs was significantly lower in the OSR group (P < .001) than that in the EVAR group, and the number of QALYs was superior in the OSR group (P = .013). The cost per QALY at three years was significantly lower in the OSR group than that in the EVAR group (mean: $4038 vs. $10 137; respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: OSR had lower complication rates and better cost-effectiveness than EVAR Among young patients with feasible aortic anatomy.

Association of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model With Disparities in the Use of Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement.

Importance: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model is Medicare's mandatory bundled payment reform to improve quality and spending for beneficiaries who need total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR), yet it does not account for sociodemographic risk factors such as race/ethnicity and income. Results of this study could be the basis for a Medicare payment reform that addresses inequities in joint replacement care. Objective: To examine the association of the CJR model with racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in the use of elective THR and TKR among older Medicare beneficiaries after accounting for the population of patients who were at risk or eligible for these surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the 2013 to 2017 national Medicare data and multivariable logistic regressions with triple-differences estimation. Medicare beneficiaries who were aged 65 to 99 years, entitled to Medicare, alive at the end of the calendar year, and residing either in the 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) mandated to participate in the CJR model or in the 104 control MSAs were identified. A subset of Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of arthritis underwent THR or TKR. Data were analyzed from March to December 2020. Exposures: Implementation of the CJR model in 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were separate binary indicators for whether a beneficiary underwent THR or TKR. Key independent variables were MSA treatment status, pre- or post-CJR model implementation phase, combination of race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic beneficiaries) and dual eligibility, and their interactions. Logistic regression models were used to control for patient characteristics, MSA fixed effects, and time trends. Results: The 2013 cohort included 4 447 205 Medicare beneficiaries, of which 2 025 357 (45.5%) resided in MSAs with the CJR model. The cohort's mean (SD) age was 77.18 (7.95) years, and it was composed of 2 951 140 female (66.4%), 3 928 432 non-Hispanic White (88.3%), and 657 073 dually eligible (14.8%) beneficiaries. Before the CJR model implementation, rates were highest among non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries at 1.25% (95% CI, 1.24%-1.26%) for THR use and 2.28% (95% CI, 2.26%-2.29%) for TKR use in MSAs with CJR model. Compared with MSAs without the CJR model and the analogous race/ethnicity and dual-eligibility group, the CJR model was associated with a 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05-0.15; P < .001) percentage-point increase in TKR use for non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, a 0.11 (95% CI, 0.004-0.21; P = .04) percentage-point increase for non-Hispanic White dual-eligible beneficiaries, a 0.15 (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.01; P = .04) percentage-point decrease for non-Hispanic Black non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, and a 0.18 (95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = .03) percentage-point decrease for non-Hispanic Black dual-eligible beneficiaries. These CJR model-associated changes in TKR use were 0.25 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.10; P = .001) percentage points lower for non-Hispanic Black non-dual-eligible beneficiaries and 0.27 (95% CI, -0.45 to -0.10; P = .002) percentage points lower for non-Hispanic Black dual-eligible beneficiaries compared with the model-associated changes for non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. No association was found between the CJR model and a widening of the THR use gap among race/ethnicity and dual eligibility groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study indicate that the CJR model was associated with a modest increase in the already substantial difference in TKR use among non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White beneficiaries; no difference was found for THR. These findings support the widespread concern that payment reform has the potential to exacerbate disparities in access to joint replacement care.

Impact of hospital volume on resource use after elective cardiac surgery: A contemporary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Institutional experience has been associated with reduced mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting and valve operations. Using a contemporary, national cohort, we examined the impact of hospital volume on hospitalization costs and postdischarge resource utilization after these operations. METHODS: Adults undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting or valve operations were identified in the 2016 to 2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Institutions were grouped into volume quartiles based on annual elective cardiac surgery caseload, and comparisons were made between the lowest and highest quartiles, using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Of an estimated 296,510 patients, 24.8% were treated at low-volume hospitals and 25.2% at high-volume hospitals. Compared with patients treated at low-volume hospitals, patients managed at high-volume hospitals were younger, had more comorbidities, and more frequently underwent combined coronary artery bypass grafting valve (13.0% vs 12.3%, P < .001) and multivalve operations (6.2% vs 3.1%, P < .001). After adjustment, operations at high-volume hospitals were associated with a $7,600 reduction (95% confidence interval $4,700-$10,500) in costs. High-volume hospitals were also associated with reduced odds of mortality, non-home discharge, and 30-day non-elective readmission compared to low-volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: Despite increased complexity at high-volume centers, greater operative volume was independently associated with reduced hospitalization costs and mortality after elective cardiac operations. Reduction in non-home discharge and readmissions suggests this effect to extend beyond acute hospitalization, which may guide value-based care paradigms.

Healthcare Resource Utilization in Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Three-Year Cost Evaluation of Truven Health Marketscan Research Databases.

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most commonly performed elective operation in the United States, with over 800,000 cases annually. While clinical outcomes comparing laparoscopic versus open techniques have been well documented, there is little data comparing costs associated with these techniques. This study evaluates the cost of healthcare resources during the 90-d postoperative period following inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. Adult patients with an ICD-9 or CPT code for inguinal hernia repair from 2012 to 2014 were included. Patients with continuous enrollment for 6 mo prior to surgery and 6 mo after surgery were analyzed. Related healthcare service costs (readmission and/or ER visit and/or outpatient visit) were calculated by clinical classification software and generalized linear modeling was used to compare healthcare utilization between groups. RESULTS: 124,582 cases were identified (open = 84,535; lap = 40,047). Index surgery cost was 41% higher in laparoscopic cases. The cost for readmission was close to $25,000 and similar between both groups, but the laparoscopic group were 12% less likely to be readmitted for surgical complications within 90-d when compared to the open group. Cost of bilateral laparoscopic repair is less than that of serial unilateral open repairs. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair carries a higher index surgery cost than open repair. However, open repair has an increased rate of readmission. To maximize value, efforts should be directed at minimizing readmissions and improving identification of bilateral hernias at the time of initial presentation.

Initial Outcomes of a Novel Irrigating Wound Protector for Reducing the Risk of Surgical Site Infection in Elective Colectomies.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) rates in elective colorectal surgery remain high due to intraoperative exposure of colonic bacteria at the surgical site. We aimed to evaluate 30-day SSI outcomes of a novel wound retractor that combines barrier protection with continuous wound irrigation in elective colorectal resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center cohort-matched analysis included all patients undergoing elective colorectal resection utilizing the novel irrigating wound protector (IWP) from April 2015 to July 2019. A control cohort of patients who underwent the same procedures with a standard wound protector over the same time period were also identified. Patients from both groups were matched for procedure type, procedure approach, pathology requiring operation, age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes, smoker status, hypertension, presence of disseminated cancer, current steroid or immunosuppressant use, wound classification, and American Society of Anesthesiologist classification. SSI frequency, SSI subtype (superficial, deep, or organ space), hospital length of stay (LOS) and associated procedure were tabulated through 30 postoperative days. Fisher's exact test and number needed to treat (NNT) were used to compare SSI rates and estimate cost between both groups. RESULTS: The IWP group had 41 patients. The control group had 82 patients. Control-matched variables were similar for both groups. 30-day SSI rates were significantly lower in the IWP group (P=0.0298). length of stay was significantly shorter in the IWP group (P=0.0150). The NNT for the IWP to prevent one episode of SSI was 8.2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The novel IWP device shows promise to reducing the risk of SSI in elective colorectal surgery.

Association of Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment Program With the Receipt of Elective Hip and Knee Replacement in White, Black, and Hispanic Beneficiaries.

Importance: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was designed to reduce the cost and improve the quality of hip or knee replacement among Medicare beneficiaries. Yet whether this model may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in access to the surgery is unclear. Objective: To examine the association of the CJR model with the receipt of elective hip or knee replacement across White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective joint replacement in 65 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 101 control metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Exposures: Starting in April 2016, hospitals in the treatment MSAs were required to participate in the CJR model and were accountable for expenditures occurring during patients' hospitalization for hip or knee replacement and 90 days after the hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Beneficiary-level elective hip or knee replacement receipt in a given year. Results: Among 17 243 304 patients, 9 839 996 (57%) were women; 2 107 425 (12%) were age 85 years or older. Of the final sample, 14 632 434 (85%) were White beneficiaries, 1 518 629 (9%) were Black beneficiaries, and 1 092 241 (6%) were Hispanic beneficiaries. The CJR model was associated with an increase of 1.6 elective hip or knee replacements per 1000 beneficiary-years for Hispanic beneficiaries (95% CI, 0.06-2.05) and a decrease of 0.64 replacements for Black beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.02). No evidence was found for any changes for White beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiary-years (0.04 replacements, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.42 replacements). The Black-White difference in the rate of elective hip or knee replacement per 1000 beneficiary-years further widened by 0.68 replacements (-0.68, 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.15). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the CJR model was associated with increased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Hispanic beneficiaries, decreased receipt among Black beneficiaries, and no change in receipt among White beneficiaries. The decreased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Black beneficiaries may suggest that value-based payment models, including the CJR model, could be monitored for unintended consequences. However, the lack of similar findings among Hispanic beneficiaries suggests that payment models may have differential impacts across racial/ethnic groups.

Charlson comorbidity index is predictive of postoperative clinical outcome after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND: In several previous studies, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score was associated with postoperative complications, mortality, and re-admission. There are few reports about the influence of CCI score on postoperative clinical outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of comorbidities as calculated with CCI on postoperative clinical outcomes after PLIF. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-six patients who underwent an elective primary single-level PLIF were included. Postoperative clinical outcome was evaluated with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association lumbar score (JOA score). The correlation coefficient between the CCI score and postoperative improvement in JOA score was investigated. Patients were divided into three groups according to their CCI score (0, 1, and 2+). JOA improvement rate, length of stay (LOS), and direct cost were compared between each group. Postoperative complications were also investigated. RESULTS: There was a weak negative relationship between CCI score and JOA improvement rate (r = - 0.20). LOS and direct cost had almost no correlation with CCI score. The JOA improvement rate of group 0 and group 1 was significantly higher than group 2+. LOS and direct cost were also significantly different between group 0 and group 2+. There were 14 postoperative complications. Adverse postoperative complications were equivalently distributed in each group, and not associated with the number of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: A higher CCI score leads to a poor postoperative outcome. The recovery rate of patients with two or more comorbidities was significantly higher than in patients without comorbidities. However, the CCI score did not influence LOS and increased direct costs. The surgeon must take into consideration the patient's comorbidities when planning a surgical intervention in order to achieve a good clinical outcome.

Resource requirements for reintroducing elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 response required the cancellation of all but the most urgent surgical procedures. The number of cancelled surgical procedures owing to Covid-19, and the reintroduction of surgical acivirt, was modelled. METHODS: This was a modelling study using Hospital Episode Statistics data (2014-2019). Surgical procedures were grouped into four urgency classes. Expected numbers of surgical procedures performed between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021 were modelled. Procedure deficit was estimated using conservative assumptions and the gradual reintroduction of elective surgery from the 1 June 2020. Costs were calculated using NHS reference costs and are reported as millions or billions of euros. Estimates are reported with 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 4 547 534 (95 per cent c.i. 3 318 195 to 6 250 771) patients with a pooled mean age of 53.5 years were expected to undergo surgery between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021. By 31 May 2020, 749 247 (513 564 to 1 077 448) surgical procedures had been cancelled. Assuming that elective surgery is reintroduced gradually, 2 328 193 (1 483 834 - 3 450 043) patients will be awaiting surgery by 28 February 2021. The cost of delayed procedures is €5.3 (3.1 to 8.0) billion. Safe delivery of surgery during the pandemic will require substantial extra resources costing €526.8 (449.3 to 633.9) million. CONCLUSION: As a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, provision of elective surgery will be delayed and associated with increased healthcare costs.

Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. DISCUSSION: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284.

Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy is cost-effective when performed in high volume centers: A five state analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic (LHR) and open hepatic resection (OHR) have not evaluated inpatient costs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify patients undergoing hepatic resection between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS: 10,239 patients underwent hepatic resection. 865 (8%) underwent LHR and 9374 (92%) underwent OHR. On adjusting for hospital volume, patients undergoing LHR had a lower risk of respiratory (OR 0.64, 95% CI [0.52, 0.78]), wound (OR 0.48; 95% CI [0.29, 0.79]) and hematologic (OR 0.57; 95% CI [0.44, 0.73]) complication as well as a lower risk of being in the highest quartile of cost (0.58; 95% CI [0.43, 0.77]) than those undergoing OHR. Patients undergoing LHR in very high volume (>314 hepatectomies/year) centers had lower risk-adjusted 90-day aggregate costs of care than those undergoing OHR (-$8022; 95% CI [-$11,732, -$4311). DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy is associated with lower risk of postoperative complication than OHR. This translates to lower aggregate costs in very high-volume centers.