Surgical endoscopy · 2023
Retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy may be superior to laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy in terms of costs and profit: a retrospective pair-matched cohort analysis.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fischer Andreas, Schöffski Oliver, Nießen Anna, Hamm Alexander, Langan Ewan A, Büchler Markus W, Billmann Franck
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A direct comparison of the cost-benefit analysis of retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy (RPA) versus the minimally invasive transperitoneal access (LTA) approach is currently lacking. We hypothesized that RPA is more cost effective than LTA; promising significant savings for the healthcare system in an era of ever more limited resources.
METHODS: We performed a monocentric retrospective observational cohort study based on data from our Endocrine Surgery Registry. Patients who were operated upon between 2019 and 2022 were included. After pair-matching, both cohorts (RPA vs. LTA) were compared for perioperative variables and treatment costs (process cost calculation), revenue and profit.
RESULTS: Two homogenous cohorts of 43 patients each (RPA vs. LTA) were identified following matching. Patient characteristics between the cohorts were comparable. In terms of both treatment-associated costs and profit, the RPA procedure was superior to LTA (costs: US$5789.99 for RPA vs. US$6617.75 for LTA, P = 0.043; profit: US$1235.59 for RPA vs. US$653.33 for LTA, P = 0.027). The duration of inpatient treatment and comorbidities significantly influenced the cost of treatment and the overall profit.
CONCLUSIONS: RPA appears not only to offer benefits over LTA in terms of perioperative morbidity and length of hospital stay, but also has a superior financial cost/benefit profile.
METHODS: We performed a monocentric retrospective observational cohort study based on data from our Endocrine Surgery Registry. Patients who were operated upon between 2019 and 2022 were included. After pair-matching, both cohorts (RPA vs. LTA) were compared for perioperative variables and treatment costs (process cost calculation), revenue and profit.
RESULTS: Two homogenous cohorts of 43 patients each (RPA vs. LTA) were identified following matching. Patient characteristics between the cohorts were comparable. In terms of both treatment-associated costs and profit, the RPA procedure was superior to LTA (costs: US$5789.99 for RPA vs. US$6617.75 for LTA, P = 0.043; profit: US$1235.59 for RPA vs. US$653.33 for LTA, P = 0.027). The duration of inpatient treatment and comorbidities significantly influenced the cost of treatment and the overall profit.
CONCLUSIONS: RPA appears not only to offer benefits over LTA in terms of perioperative morbidity and length of hospital stay, but also has a superior financial cost/benefit profile.