Regional cost analysis for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
- 152 Downloads
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the most common procedure performed by general surgeons in the United States, with approximately 600,000 procedures performed annually. As the cost of care rises, there is increasing emphasis on utilization and quality. Our objective was to evaluate the cost of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in our health system and to compare the operative times and outcomes at high- and low-cost centers.
We evaluated all laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in our system over a 1-year period. The operating room supply costs and procedure durations were obtained for each of the hospitals. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program outcomes and demographics were compared to the costs for each hospital.
During the study period, 7601 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed at 20 hospitals (170–759/hospital) by 227 surgeons. The average cost per case ranged from $296 at the lowest cost center to $658 at the highest cost center. The average operative time varied between sites from 46 to 95 min. There was no association between cost and operative time or case volume. There was a slight trend toward increased cost with higher number of emergency procedures, but this was not well correlated (R2 = 0.03). The patient demographics and comorbidities were similar between sites. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between high- and low-cost centers. The items with the greatest increase in cost were disposable trocars, disposable hook cautery, disposable endoscissors, and disposable clip appliers. We estimate that a savings of over $300/case is possible by using reusable instruments, which would result in an annual savings of $1.3 million for our health system, and $285 million nationwide.
Performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with reusable instruments can significantly decrease costs and does not increase operative time or postoperative complications.
KeywordsLaparoscopic cholecystectomy Cost Utilization Instrument
We would like to thank Patricia E. Palacios and Tammy S. Peacock for their assistance with the acquisition and management of our datasets.
Compliance with ethical standards
Drs. Pontarelli, Grinberg, Isaacs, Morris, Ajayi, and Yenumula have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 1.Hartman M, Martin AB, Espinosa N, Catlin A, The National Health Expenditure Accounts T (2018) National health care spending. In 2016 spending and enrollment growth slow after initial coverage expansions. Health Aff (Millwood) 37(1):150–160. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Fingar KR, Stocks C, Weiss AJ, Steiner CA (2014) Most frequent operating room procedures performed in US Hospitals, 2003–2012. HCUP Statistical Brief #186. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb186-Operating-Room-Procedures-United-States-2012.pdf
- 3.Weiss AJ, Elixhauser A, Andrews RM (2014) Characteristics of operating room procedures in US hospitals 2011. RockvilleGoogle Scholar
- 5.Benchmarks. Lap chole supply costs show wide variation (2000). OR Manager 16 (1):30Google Scholar
- 9.Brauer DG, Hawkins WG, Strasberg SM, Brunt LM, Jaques DP, Mercurio NR, Hall BL, Fields RC (2015) Cost variation in a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the association with outcomes across a single health system: implications for standardization and improved resource utilization. HPB (Oxford) 17(12):1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb.12500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Paolucci V, Schaeff B, Gutt CN, Encke A (1995) Disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective, randomised study. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 3(2–3):147–150Google Scholar
- 14.Gitelis M, Vigneswaran Y, Ujiki MB, Denham W, Talamonti M, Muldoon JP, Linn JG (2015) Educating surgeons on intraoperative disposable supply costs during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a regional health system’s experience. Am J Surg 209(3):488–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.09.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar