Surgery News - January 2009 - (Page 5) JANUARY 2009 • SURGERY NEWS NEWS 5 Study Compares Costs of Appendectomy Procedures BY JANE SALODOF MACNEIL Else vier Global Medical Ne ws S A N TA F E , N . M . — A review of discharge data from nearly 1.5 million appendectomies found average hospital charges in nonperforated appendicitis cases were nearly $4,000 higher for laparoscopic procedures than for open procedures, despite similar lengths of stay. Conversely, charges were comparable for both types of procedures in perforated cases, but hospital stays were 1 day shorter when surgery was done laparoscopically. “These data indicate that laparoscopic appendectomy should be reserved for perforated appendicitis while open appendectomy should be performed in nonperforated appendicitis,” David Ludlow, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, concluded in a presentation of the findings days after an open appendectomy. Among the advantages offered by the NIS database, Mr. Ludlow noted its large size, objectivity, inclusion of all kinds of patients from all kinds of hospitals, and ability to stratify data by perforated vs. nonperforated appendicitis. The NIS does not, however, include data on readmissions, wound infections, intraabdominal abscesses, or return to work. Addressing these gaps, he cited single- institution studies that have shown similar readmission and wound infection rates for laparoscopic and open procedures, but higher abscess rates by 1%-4% and faster return to work by 1-4 days after laparoscopic appendectomy. In a discussion of the study, Dr. Fred Luchette, an ACS Fellow with Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill., praised the research but questioned the recommendations made solely on the basis of evidence from discharge data. While hospital costs in nonperforated cases may be higher with laparoscopic procedures, the cost to society could be lower, he said, noting that such patients usually return to work sooner. As for why an open procedure with longer length of stay would not cost more in perforated appendectomy cases, Dr. Nirula concurred with an audience suggestion that the added cost of equipment for laparoscopic cases probably was a balancing factor. ■ FOR NONPERFORATED APPENDICITIS, LAPAROSCOPIC PROCEDURES IN 2005 AVERAGED $18,479 VS. $14,828 FOR OPEN APPENDECTOMY. at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association. Mr. Ludlow and senior author Dr. Raminder Nirula, an ACS Fellow and a surgeon at the University of Utah Hospitals, conducted the retrospective cohort study of appendectomies in the U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2001 to 2005. Using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes, they identified 598,384 laparoscopic procedures and 871,605 open procedures. During the years studied, the number of laparoscopic procedures increased by 24% for nonperforated appendicitis and by 19% for perforated appendicitis, while the number of open appendectomies decreased. By 2005, the discharge data showed nonperforated appendicitis was more likely to be treated laparoscopically than by open surgery. Open appendectomy was still more common in perforated cases by then, but the difference nationally was only about 5,000 cases (fewer than 30,000 laparoscopic procedures vs. fewer than 25,000 open procedures). While hospital charges throughout the study period increased for laparoscopic and open procedures, by 2005 they were similar in perforated cases at $26,399 and $25,368, respectively. For nonperforated appendicitis, however, laparoscopic procedures in 2005 averaged $18,479 vs. $14,828 for open appendectomy. Lengths of stay in nonperforated cases were similar, at 1.7 days for laparoscopic procedures and 2.1 days for open procedures, Mr. Ludlow reported. In perforated cases, however, laparoscopic patients were able to leave the hospital after 4.2 days on average versus 5.1
Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Surgery News - January 2009 Surgery News - January 2009 Contents The 20/20 Vision Intent to Prevent News From the College: The Year Ahead Thoracic: Tracheal Triumph Practice Trends: Making the Grade Surgery News - January 2009 Surgery News - January 2009 - Contents (Page 1) Surgery News - January 2009 - Contents (Page 2) Surgery News - January 2009 - Contents (Page 3) Surgery News - January 2009 - Contents (Page 4) Surgery News - January 2009 - Contents (Page 5) Surgery News - January 2009 - The 20/20 Vision Intent to Prevent (Page 6) Surgery News - January 2009 - The 20/20 Vision Intent to Prevent (Page 7) Surgery News - January 2009 - News From the College: The Year Ahead (Page 8) Surgery News - January 2009 - News From the College: The Year Ahead (Page 9) Surgery News - January 2009 - Thoracic: Tracheal Triumph (Page 10) Surgery News - January 2009 - Thoracic: Tracheal Triumph (Page 11) Surgery News - January 2009 - Thoracic: Tracheal Triumph (Page 12) Surgery News - January 2009 - Thoracic: Tracheal Triumph (Page 13) Surgery News - January 2009 - Thoracic: Tracheal Triumph (Page 14) Surgery News - January 2009 - Practice Trends: Making the Grade (Page 15) Surgery News - January 2009 - Practice Trends: Making the Grade (Page 16)
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.