并发症,非微创手术技术,与食管切除术后费用增加有关

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY Minimally Invasive Surgery Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI:10.1155/2016/7690632
S. J. Fu, V. Ho, J. Ginsberg, Y. Perry, C. Delaney, P. Linden, C. Towe
{"title":"并发症,非微创手术技术,与食管切除术后费用增加有关","authors":"S. J. Fu, V. Ho, J. Ginsberg, Y. Perry, C. Delaney, P. Linden, C. Towe","doi":"10.1155/2016/7690632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques offer similar oncological and surgical outcomes to open methods. The effects of MIE on hospital costs are not well documented. Methods. We reviewed the electronic records of patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single academic institution between January 2012 and December 2014. Esophagectomy techniques were grouped into open, hybrid, MIE, and transhiatal (THE) esophagectomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the impact of surgery on total hospital cost after esophagectomy. Results. 80 patients were identified: 11 THE, 11 open, 41 hybrid, and 17 MIE. Median total cost of the hospitalization was $31,375 and was similar between surgical technique groups. MIE was associated with higher intraoperative costs, but not total hospital cost. Multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of a complication, increased age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV (ASA4), and preoperative coronary artery disease (CAD) were associated with significantly increased cost. Conclusions. Despite the association of MIE with higher operation costs, the total hospital cost was not different between surgical technique groups. Postoperative complications and severe preoperative comorbidities are significant drivers of hospital cost associated with esophagectomy. Surgeons should choose technique based on clinical factors, rather than cost implications.","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":"2016 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/7690632","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complications, Not Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique, Are Associated with Increased Cost after Esophagectomy\",\"authors\":\"S. J. Fu, V. Ho, J. Ginsberg, Y. Perry, C. Delaney, P. Linden, C. Towe\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2016/7690632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques offer similar oncological and surgical outcomes to open methods. The effects of MIE on hospital costs are not well documented. Methods. We reviewed the electronic records of patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single academic institution between January 2012 and December 2014. Esophagectomy techniques were grouped into open, hybrid, MIE, and transhiatal (THE) esophagectomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the impact of surgery on total hospital cost after esophagectomy. Results. 80 patients were identified: 11 THE, 11 open, 41 hybrid, and 17 MIE. Median total cost of the hospitalization was $31,375 and was similar between surgical technique groups. MIE was associated with higher intraoperative costs, but not total hospital cost. Multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of a complication, increased age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV (ASA4), and preoperative coronary artery disease (CAD) were associated with significantly increased cost. Conclusions. Despite the association of MIE with higher operation costs, the total hospital cost was not different between surgical technique groups. Postoperative complications and severe preoperative comorbidities are significant drivers of hospital cost associated with esophagectomy. Surgeons should choose technique based on clinical factors, rather than cost implications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimally Invasive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"2016 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/7690632\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimally Invasive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7690632\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7690632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

背景。微创食管切除术(MIE)技术与开放式方法具有相似的肿瘤和手术结果。MIE对医院费用的影响没有很好的记录。方法。我们回顾了2012年1月至2014年12月在一家学术机构接受食管切除术患者的电子记录。食管切除术技术分为开放式、混合式、MIE式和经食管切除术(THE)。进行单因素和多因素分析以评估手术对食管切除术后总住院费用的影响。结果:80例患者:11例THE, 11例open, 41例hybrid, 17例MIE。住院总费用中位数为31,375美元,在手术技术组之间相似。MIE与较高的术中费用相关,但与总医院费用无关。多变量分析显示,并发症的出现、年龄的增加、美国麻醉师协会IV级(ASA4)和术前冠状动脉疾病(CAD)与费用的显著增加相关。结论。尽管MIE与较高的手术费用相关,但手术技术组之间的总住院费用没有差异。术后并发症和严重的术前合并症是与食管切除术相关的住院费用的重要驱动因素。外科医生应该根据临床因素而不是成本影响来选择技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Complications, Not Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique, Are Associated with Increased Cost after Esophagectomy
Background. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques offer similar oncological and surgical outcomes to open methods. The effects of MIE on hospital costs are not well documented. Methods. We reviewed the electronic records of patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single academic institution between January 2012 and December 2014. Esophagectomy techniques were grouped into open, hybrid, MIE, and transhiatal (THE) esophagectomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the impact of surgery on total hospital cost after esophagectomy. Results. 80 patients were identified: 11 THE, 11 open, 41 hybrid, and 17 MIE. Median total cost of the hospitalization was $31,375 and was similar between surgical technique groups. MIE was associated with higher intraoperative costs, but not total hospital cost. Multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of a complication, increased age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV (ASA4), and preoperative coronary artery disease (CAD) were associated with significantly increased cost. Conclusions. Despite the association of MIE with higher operation costs, the total hospital cost was not different between surgical technique groups. Postoperative complications and severe preoperative comorbidities are significant drivers of hospital cost associated with esophagectomy. Surgeons should choose technique based on clinical factors, rather than cost implications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Mortality and Postoperative Complications Between Open and Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: An Umbrella Review. Initial Experience of Robot-Assisted Nephroureterectomy without Intraoperative Repositioning Using a New Robotic Surgical System (KD-SR-01TM). Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes of Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Situs Inversus Totalis: A Systematic Review. Clinical Factors to Predict Difficult Ureter during Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1