Cargando…
Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery
BACKGROUND: As the US healthcare system moves towards value-based care, hospitals have increased efforts to improve quality and reduce unnecessary resource use. Surgery is one of the most resource-intensive areas of healthcare and we aim to compare health resource utilization between open and minima...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9022614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35445834 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09189-8 |
_version_ | 1784690124687147008 |
---|---|
author | Ricciardi, Rocco Goldstone, Robert Neil Francone, Todd Wszolek, Matthew Auchincloss, Hugh de Groot, Alexander Shih, I.-Fan Li, Yanli |
author_facet | Ricciardi, Rocco Goldstone, Robert Neil Francone, Todd Wszolek, Matthew Auchincloss, Hugh de Groot, Alexander Shih, I.-Fan Li, Yanli |
author_sort | Ricciardi, Rocco |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: As the US healthcare system moves towards value-based care, hospitals have increased efforts to improve quality and reduce unnecessary resource use. Surgery is one of the most resource-intensive areas of healthcare and we aim to compare health resource utilization between open and minimally invasive cancer procedures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed cancer patients who underwent colon resection, rectal resection, lobectomy, or radical nephrectomy within the Premier hospital database between 2014 and 2019. Study outcomes included length of stay (LOS), discharge status, reoperation, and 30-day readmission. The open surgical approach was compared to minimally invasive approach (MIS), with subgroup analysis of laparoscopic/video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (LAP/VATS) and robotic (RS) approaches, using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: MIS patients had shorter LOS compared to open approach: − 1.87 days for lobectomy, − 1.34 days for colon resection, − 0.47 days for rectal resection, and − 1.21 days for radical nephrectomy (all p < .001). All MIS procedures except for rectal resection are associated with higher discharge to home rates and lower reoperation and readmission rates. Within MIS, robotic approach was further associated with shorter LOS than LAP/VATS: − 0.13 days for lobectomy, − 0.28 days for colon resection, − 0.67 days for rectal resection, and − 0.33 days for radical nephrectomy (all p < .05) and with equivalent readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate a significant shorter LOS, higher discharge to home rate, and lower rates of reoperation and readmission for MIS as compared to open procedures in patients with lung, kidney, and colorectal cancer. Patients who underwent robotic procedures had further reductions in LOS compare to laparoscopic/video-assisted thoracoscopic approach, while the reductions in LOS did not lead to increased rates of readmission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09189-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9022614 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90226142022-04-21 Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery Ricciardi, Rocco Goldstone, Robert Neil Francone, Todd Wszolek, Matthew Auchincloss, Hugh de Groot, Alexander Shih, I.-Fan Li, Yanli Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: As the US healthcare system moves towards value-based care, hospitals have increased efforts to improve quality and reduce unnecessary resource use. Surgery is one of the most resource-intensive areas of healthcare and we aim to compare health resource utilization between open and minimally invasive cancer procedures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed cancer patients who underwent colon resection, rectal resection, lobectomy, or radical nephrectomy within the Premier hospital database between 2014 and 2019. Study outcomes included length of stay (LOS), discharge status, reoperation, and 30-day readmission. The open surgical approach was compared to minimally invasive approach (MIS), with subgroup analysis of laparoscopic/video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (LAP/VATS) and robotic (RS) approaches, using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: MIS patients had shorter LOS compared to open approach: − 1.87 days for lobectomy, − 1.34 days for colon resection, − 0.47 days for rectal resection, and − 1.21 days for radical nephrectomy (all p < .001). All MIS procedures except for rectal resection are associated with higher discharge to home rates and lower reoperation and readmission rates. Within MIS, robotic approach was further associated with shorter LOS than LAP/VATS: − 0.13 days for lobectomy, − 0.28 days for colon resection, − 0.67 days for rectal resection, and − 0.33 days for radical nephrectomy (all p < .05) and with equivalent readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate a significant shorter LOS, higher discharge to home rate, and lower rates of reoperation and readmission for MIS as compared to open procedures in patients with lung, kidney, and colorectal cancer. Patients who underwent robotic procedures had further reductions in LOS compare to laparoscopic/video-assisted thoracoscopic approach, while the reductions in LOS did not lead to increased rates of readmission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09189-8. Springer US 2022-04-21 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9022614/ /pubmed/35445834 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09189-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Ricciardi, Rocco Goldstone, Robert Neil Francone, Todd Wszolek, Matthew Auchincloss, Hugh de Groot, Alexander Shih, I.-Fan Li, Yanli Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery |
title | Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery |
title_full | Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery |
title_fullStr | Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery |
title_full_unstemmed | Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery |
title_short | Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery |
title_sort | healthcare resource utilization after surgical treatment of cancer: value of minimally invasive surgery |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9022614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35445834 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09189-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ricciardirocco healthcareresourceutilizationaftersurgicaltreatmentofcancervalueofminimallyinvasivesurgery AT goldstonerobertneil healthcareresourceutilizationaftersurgicaltreatmentofcancervalueofminimallyinvasivesurgery AT franconetodd healthcareresourceutilizationaftersurgicaltreatmentofcancervalueofminimallyinvasivesurgery AT wszolekmatthew healthcareresourceutilizationaftersurgicaltreatmentofcancervalueofminimallyinvasivesurgery AT auchinclosshugh healthcareresourceutilizationaftersurgicaltreatmentofcancervalueofminimallyinvasivesurgery AT degrootalexander healthcareresourceutilizationaftersurgicaltreatmentofcancervalueofminimallyinvasivesurgery AT shihifan healthcareresourceutilizationaftersurgicaltreatmentofcancervalueofminimallyinvasivesurgery AT liyanli healthcareresourceutilizationaftersurgicaltreatmentofcancervalueofminimallyinvasivesurgery |