Costs Analysis of Laparoendoscopic, Single-site Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for CT1 Renal Masses in a European High-volume Centre

Overview

Journal World J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2013 Dec 19

PMID 24346843

Citations 1

Authors

Giovannalberto Pini

Luigi Ascalone

Francesco Greco

Nasreldin Mohammed

Paolo Fornara

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To analyse intraoperative costs and healthcare reimbursements of partial/radical nephrectomy in open and minimal invasive surgery (MIS), as laparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), for the treatment of renal tumour.

Materials And Methods: In a non-randomized retrospective study, we selected 90 patients who underwent (01/2010-12/2011) partial and radical nephrectomy for clinical renal masses ≤7 cm (cT1N0M0) and divided them into laparoscopic [laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN)], LESS [laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy (LESS-PN), laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy (LESS-RN)] and open groups [open partial nephrectomy (OPN), open radical nephrectomy (ORN)]. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, ASA score and tumour side. Primary endpoints were evaluation of intraoperative costs (general, laparoscopic, sutures, haemostatic agents, anaesthesia, and surgeon/nurses fee), total insurance and estimated daily reimbursement.

Results: MIS showed longer operative time (p ≤ .02) and shorter hospital stay (p ≤ .04). Total costs were higher (p ≤ .03) in MIS (LRN: 4,091.5 <euro>; LPN: 4,390.4 <euro>; LESS-RN: 3,866 <euro>; and LESS-PN: 3,450 <euro>) if compared with open (OPN: 2,216.8.8 <euro>, ORN: 1,606.4 <euro>). Laparoscopic materials incised mainly in total costs of MIS (38-58.1 %). Reusable instruments reduced LESS laparoscopic costs (LESS-PN: 1,312.2 <euro> vs. LRN: 2,212.2 <euro>, p < .0001). Intraoperative frozen section and DJ ureteric stenting (general costs) (p ≤ .008) and haemostatic agents use (p ≤ .01) were higher in nephron sparing surgery (NSS), due to more frequent use of ancillary procedures necessary for a safe management of such an approach. Estimated anaesthesia costs and doctor/nurses fee were higher in MIS (p ≤ .02). Whereas total final reimbursements were comparable (p ≥ .8), estimated daily reimbursements were lower in MIS (p < .001) due to higher intraoperative costs and longer operative time.

Conclusion: Well-known advantages offered by MIS/NSS face higher total intraoperative costs and 'paradoxical' reduced healthcare reimbursement. We believe that local health systems should consider a subclassification with different compensations, which will incentive NSS and MIS approaches.

Citing Articles

Open versus minimally-invasive surgical techniques in pediatric renal tumors: A population-level analysis of in-hospital outcomes.

Simmons K, Chandrapal J, Wolf S, Rice H, Tracy E, Fitzgerald T J Pediatr Urol. 2021; 17(4):534.e1-534.e7.

PMID: 33849794 PMC: 8449787. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.03.010.

References

van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, Matveev V, Bono A, Borkowski A . A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2010; 59(4):543-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.013. View

Herwartz H, Strumann C . On the effect of prospective payment on local hospital competition in Germany. Health Care Manag Sci. 2011; 15(1):48-62. DOI: 10.1007/s10729-011-9180-9. View

Cooperberg M, Mallin K, Kane C, Carroll P . Treatment trends for stage I renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2011; 186(2):394-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.130. View

Greco F, Hoda M, Mohammed N, Springer C, Fischer K, Fornara P . Laparoendoscopic single-site and conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy result in equivalent surgical trauma: preliminary results of a single-centre retrospective controlled study. Eur Urol. 2012; 61(5):1048-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.043. View

Campbell S, Novick A, Belldegrun A, Blute M, Chow G, Derweesh I . Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol. 2009; 182(4):1271-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.004. View

Becker A, Roghmann F, Trinh Q, Hansen J, Tian Z, Shariat S . Sociodemographic disparities in the treatment of small renal masses. BJU Int. 2013; 111(8):E274-82. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12111. View

Minervini A, Serni S, Tuccio A, Siena G, Vittori G, Masieri L . Simple enucleation versus radical nephrectomy in the treatment of pT1a and pT1b renal cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 19(2):694-700. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-2003-x. View

Ljungberg B, Cowan N, Hanbury D, Hora M, Kuczyk M, Merseburger A . EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol. 2010; 58(3):398-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.032. View

van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, Matveev V, Bono A, Borkowski A . A prospective randomized EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the complications of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2006; 51(6):1606-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.013. View

10.

Greco F, Veneziano D, Wagner S, Kawan F, Mohammed N, Hoda M . Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy for renal cancer: technique and surgical outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011; 62(1):168-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.002. View

11.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P . Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(2):205-13. PMC: 1360123. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. View

12.

Bartkowski R . [Length of hospital stay due to DRG reimbursement]. Ther Umsch. 2011; 69(1):15-21. DOI: 10.1024/0040-5930/a000245. View

13.

Cindolo L, Greco F, Fornara P, Mirone V, Schips L . Nephron sparing LESS: technique and review of the current literature. Arch Esp Urol. 2012; 65(3):303-10. View

14.

Springer C, Hoda M, Fajkovic H, Pini G, Mohammed N, Fornara P . Laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy for T1 renal tumours: evaluation of long-term oncological and functional outcomes in 340 patients. BJU Int. 2012; 111(2):281-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11280.x. View

15.

Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jocham D . Why is urological laparoscopy minimally invasive?. Eur Urol. 2000; 37(3):241-50. DOI: 10.1159/000052351. View

16.

Sprenkle P, Power N, Ghoneim T, Touijer K, Dalbagni G, Russo P . Comparison of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for renal tumors 4-7 centimeters. Eur Urol. 2011; 61(3):593-9. PMC: 6693652. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.040. View

17.

Edge S, Compton C . The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17(6):1471-4. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-0985-4. View

18.

Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E . Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010; 60(5):277-300. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20073. View

19.

Sun M, Becker A, Tian Z, Roghmann F, Abdollah F, Larouche A . Management of localized kidney cancer: calculating cancer-specific mortality and competing risks of death for surgery and nonsurgical management. Eur Urol. 2013; 65(1):235-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.034. View

20.

Volkmer B, Petschl S, Rieder M, Fichtner J, Puhse G, Kleinschmidt K . [The German diagnosis-related groups in urology: reproducibility and quality of coding]. Urologe A. 2008; 47(3):304-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-007-1571-7. View