Participation of the general gynecologist in surgical staging of endometrial cancer: Analysis of cost and perioperative outcomes

To compare the cost and perioperative outcomes of endometrial cancer staging when the procedure is performed by a gynecologic oncologist alone or when a general gynecologist participates in the procedure. A retrospective analysis was performed on a series of women with clinical stage I endometrial c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gynecologic oncology 2006-12, Vol.103 (3), p.897-901
Hauptverfasser: Hoekstra, A., Singh, D.K., Garb, M., Arekapudi, S., Rademaker, A., Lurain, J.R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To compare the cost and perioperative outcomes of endometrial cancer staging when the procedure is performed by a gynecologic oncologist alone or when a general gynecologist participates in the procedure. A retrospective analysis was performed on a series of women with clinical stage I endometrial cancer treated at a single institution between 1/98 and 12/00. The patients were grouped according to the participation of a general gynecologist in their surgery. The 48 patients in Group 1 underwent surgery with a general gynecologist who consulted a gynecologic oncologist intraoperatively. Group 2 included 77 patients whose procedure was performed completely by a gynecologic oncologist. The two groups were compared with the chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Cost analysis included total hospital costs (room, pharmacy, and ancillary services) and total surgical costs (anesthesia, operating room, procedure, and perioperative physician evaluation costs). The groups did not differ in age, type of surgeries performed, distribution of surgical stage, proportion of patients undergoing lymph node sampling (LNS), and length of follow-up. When LNS was performed, Group 2 had a significantly shorter median operative time (170 vs. 180 min; P = 0.05) and shorter total time in the operating room (204 vs. 224 min; P = 0.02). This group had a lower procedure cost when considered both in terms of payor's cost ($1,414 vs. $2,134; P 
ISSN:0090-8258
1095-6859
DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.05.019