Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison
Background Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) should not cost more or less than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Methods Retrospective cost data were collected from the accounting records of a single institution. A direct comparison of LC and SILC was conducted. Data o...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2011-05, Vol.25 (5), p.1553-1558 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1558 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1553 |
| container_title | Surgical endoscopy |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Love, Katie M. Durham, Christopher A. Meara, Michael P. Mays, Ashley C. Bower, Curtis E. |
| description | Background
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) should not cost more or less than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
Methods
Retrospective cost data were collected from the accounting records of a single institution. A direct comparison of LC and SILC was conducted. Data on the SILC cases converted to LC were included. The total operating room (OR) cost (actual cost to the hospital for equipment, time, and personnel) and the total OR charges (total derived from the OR cost plus a margin to cover overhead costs beyond material costs) were examined. The total hospital charges (OR charges plus hospital charges accrued in the perioperative period) also were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, with
p
values less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results
Over a period of 19 months, 116 cases of minimally invasive cholecystectomy were evaluated. Of the 116 patients, 48 underwent LC during the first half of that period, and 68 patients underwent SILC during the second half of that period. Nine of the single-incision procedures were converted to traditional LC, for a 13% conversion rate. The groups were well matched from a demographics standpoint, with no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, or payment. Comparison of all attempted SILCs, including those converted, with all LCs showed no significant difference in cost category totals. A significant difference among all cost variables was found when SILCs were compared with SILCs that required conversion to LC. A significant difference among the cost variables also was found when LCs were compared with converted SILCs.
Conclusion
The cost for SILC did not differ significantly from that for LC when standard materials were used and the duration of the procedure was considered. Converted cases were significantly more expensive than completed SILC and LC cases. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00464-010-1433-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_860878106</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>860878106</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-bd5099598faee800c941eb5ba723b846dd6a87d04ee13c4d4f5a7310de805b963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1LwzAYB_AgipvTD-BFiiCeok9e2iReRIZvMPCgnkuaprOjbWbTHrZPb0qnguAlL-SXJ0_-CJ0SuCIA4toD8IRjIIAJZwxv99A0LCimlMh9NAXFAFOh-AQdeb-CwBWJD9GEghIJF3KKbl_LZllZXDam9KVrokqvdeu8cevSRObDVdZsfGdN5-rNTaQj43wXhjqo0rvmGB0UuvL2ZDfP0PvD_dv8CS9eHp_ndwtsOECHszwGpWIlC22tBDCKE5vFmRaUZZIneZ5oKXLg1hJmeM6LWAtGIA84zlTCZuhyrLtu3WdvfZfWpTe2qnRjXe9TmYAUksAgz__IlevbJjQ3IEp5zCAgMiIT_upbW6Trtqx1u0kJpEO26ZhtCsM-ZJtuw52zXeE-q23-c-M7zAAudkB7o6ui1UOov45TFoPgwdHR-XDULG372-H_r38Bi3SRKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>860224530</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Love, Katie M. ; Durham, Christopher A. ; Meara, Michael P. ; Mays, Ashley C. ; Bower, Curtis E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Love, Katie M. ; Durham, Christopher A. ; Meara, Michael P. ; Mays, Ashley C. ; Bower, Curtis E.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) should not cost more or less than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
Methods
Retrospective cost data were collected from the accounting records of a single institution. A direct comparison of LC and SILC was conducted. Data on the SILC cases converted to LC were included. The total operating room (OR) cost (actual cost to the hospital for equipment, time, and personnel) and the total OR charges (total derived from the OR cost plus a margin to cover overhead costs beyond material costs) were examined. The total hospital charges (OR charges plus hospital charges accrued in the perioperative period) also were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, with
p
values less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results
Over a period of 19 months, 116 cases of minimally invasive cholecystectomy were evaluated. Of the 116 patients, 48 underwent LC during the first half of that period, and 68 patients underwent SILC during the second half of that period. Nine of the single-incision procedures were converted to traditional LC, for a 13% conversion rate. The groups were well matched from a demographics standpoint, with no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, or payment. Comparison of all attempted SILCs, including those converted, with all LCs showed no significant difference in cost category totals. A significant difference among all cost variables was found when SILCs were compared with SILCs that required conversion to LC. A significant difference among the cost variables also was found when LCs were compared with converted SILCs.
Conclusion
The cost for SILC did not differ significantly from that for LC when standard materials were used and the duration of the procedure was considered. Converted cases were significantly more expensive than completed SILC and LC cases.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1433-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20976478</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SUREEX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Accounting records ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cholecystectomy ; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics ; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods ; Costs ; Digestive system. Abdomen ; Endoscopy ; Gastroenterology ; Gynecology ; Hepatology ; Hospital Charges ; Hospital Costs ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Laparoscopy ; Liver, biliary tract, pancreas, portal circulation, spleen ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Operating Rooms - economics ; Overhead costs ; Proctology ; Surgery ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the digestive system</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 2011-05, Vol.25 (5), p.1553-1558</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-bd5099598faee800c941eb5ba723b846dd6a87d04ee13c4d4f5a7310de805b963</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-bd5099598faee800c941eb5ba723b846dd6a87d04ee13c4d4f5a7310de805b963</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-010-1433-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-010-1433-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,23910,23911,25119,27903,27904,41467,42536,51298</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24235074$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20976478$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Love, Katie M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durham, Christopher A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meara, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mays, Ashley C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bower, Curtis E.</creatorcontrib><title>Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>Background
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) should not cost more or less than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
Methods
Retrospective cost data were collected from the accounting records of a single institution. A direct comparison of LC and SILC was conducted. Data on the SILC cases converted to LC were included. The total operating room (OR) cost (actual cost to the hospital for equipment, time, and personnel) and the total OR charges (total derived from the OR cost plus a margin to cover overhead costs beyond material costs) were examined. The total hospital charges (OR charges plus hospital charges accrued in the perioperative period) also were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, with
p
values less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results
Over a period of 19 months, 116 cases of minimally invasive cholecystectomy were evaluated. Of the 116 patients, 48 underwent LC during the first half of that period, and 68 patients underwent SILC during the second half of that period. Nine of the single-incision procedures were converted to traditional LC, for a 13% conversion rate. The groups were well matched from a demographics standpoint, with no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, or payment. Comparison of all attempted SILCs, including those converted, with all LCs showed no significant difference in cost category totals. A significant difference among all cost variables was found when SILCs were compared with SILCs that required conversion to LC. A significant difference among the cost variables also was found when LCs were compared with converted SILCs.
Conclusion
The cost for SILC did not differ significantly from that for LC when standard materials were used and the duration of the procedure was considered. Converted cases were significantly more expensive than completed SILC and LC cases.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Accounting records</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Digestive system. Abdomen</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Hospital Charges</subject><subject>Hospital Costs</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Liver, biliary tract, pancreas, portal circulation, spleen</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Operating Rooms - economics</subject><subject>Overhead costs</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the digestive system</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp10E1LwzAYB_AgipvTD-BFiiCeok9e2iReRIZvMPCgnkuaprOjbWbTHrZPb0qnguAlL-SXJ0_-CJ0SuCIA4toD8IRjIIAJZwxv99A0LCimlMh9NAXFAFOh-AQdeb-CwBWJD9GEghIJF3KKbl_LZllZXDam9KVrokqvdeu8cevSRObDVdZsfGdN5-rNTaQj43wXhjqo0rvmGB0UuvL2ZDfP0PvD_dv8CS9eHp_ndwtsOECHszwGpWIlC22tBDCKE5vFmRaUZZIneZ5oKXLg1hJmeM6LWAtGIA84zlTCZuhyrLtu3WdvfZfWpTe2qnRjXe9TmYAUksAgz__IlevbJjQ3IEp5zCAgMiIT_upbW6Trtqx1u0kJpEO26ZhtCsM-ZJtuw52zXeE-q23-c-M7zAAudkB7o6ui1UOov45TFoPgwdHR-XDULG372-H_r38Bi3SRKg</recordid><startdate>20110501</startdate><enddate>20110501</enddate><creator>Love, Katie M.</creator><creator>Durham, Christopher A.</creator><creator>Meara, Michael P.</creator><creator>Mays, Ashley C.</creator><creator>Bower, Curtis E.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110501</creationdate><title>Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison</title><author>Love, Katie M. ; Durham, Christopher A. ; Meara, Michael P. ; Mays, Ashley C. ; Bower, Curtis E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-bd5099598faee800c941eb5ba723b846dd6a87d04ee13c4d4f5a7310de805b963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Accounting records</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Digestive system. Abdomen</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Hospital Charges</topic><topic>Hospital Costs</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Liver, biliary tract, pancreas, portal circulation, spleen</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Operating Rooms - economics</topic><topic>Overhead costs</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the digestive system</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Love, Katie M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durham, Christopher A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meara, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mays, Ashley C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bower, Curtis E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Love, Katie M.</au><au>Durham, Christopher A.</au><au>Meara, Michael P.</au><au>Mays, Ashley C.</au><au>Bower, Curtis E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><stitle>Surg Endosc</stitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>2011-05-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1553</spage><epage>1558</epage><pages>1553-1558</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><coden>SUREEX</coden><abstract>Background
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) should not cost more or less than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
Methods
Retrospective cost data were collected from the accounting records of a single institution. A direct comparison of LC and SILC was conducted. Data on the SILC cases converted to LC were included. The total operating room (OR) cost (actual cost to the hospital for equipment, time, and personnel) and the total OR charges (total derived from the OR cost plus a margin to cover overhead costs beyond material costs) were examined. The total hospital charges (OR charges plus hospital charges accrued in the perioperative period) also were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, with
p
values less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results
Over a period of 19 months, 116 cases of minimally invasive cholecystectomy were evaluated. Of the 116 patients, 48 underwent LC during the first half of that period, and 68 patients underwent SILC during the second half of that period. Nine of the single-incision procedures were converted to traditional LC, for a 13% conversion rate. The groups were well matched from a demographics standpoint, with no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, or payment. Comparison of all attempted SILCs, including those converted, with all LCs showed no significant difference in cost category totals. A significant difference among all cost variables was found when SILCs were compared with SILCs that required conversion to LC. A significant difference among the cost variables also was found when LCs were compared with converted SILCs.
Conclusion
The cost for SILC did not differ significantly from that for LC when standard materials were used and the duration of the procedure was considered. Converted cases were significantly more expensive than completed SILC and LC cases.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20976478</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00464-010-1433-z</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0930-2794 |
| ispartof | Surgical endoscopy, 2011-05, Vol.25 (5), p.1553-1558 |
| issn | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_860878106 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Abdominal Surgery Accounting records Biological and medical sciences Cholecystectomy Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods Costs Digestive system. Abdomen Endoscopy Gastroenterology Gynecology Hepatology Hospital Charges Hospital Costs Hospitals Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Laparoscopy Liver, biliary tract, pancreas, portal circulation, spleen Medical sciences Medicine Medicine & Public Health Operating Rooms - economics Overhead costs Proctology Surgery Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Surgery of the digestive system |
| title | Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T11%3A33%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Single-incision%20laparoscopic%20cholecystectomy:%20a%20cost%20comparison&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=Love,%20Katie%20M.&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1553&rft.epage=1558&rft.pages=1553-1558&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft.coden=SUREEX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00464-010-1433-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E860878106%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=860224530&rft_id=info:pmid/20976478&rfr_iscdi=true |