A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: Clinical and economic analyses

Kirsten Hall Long, Michael P. Bannon, Scott P. Zietlow, Eva R. Helgeson, William S. Harmsen, C. Daniel Smith, Duane M. Ilstrup, Yvonne Baerga-Varela, Michael G. Sarr

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

156 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Previous randomized studies of laparoscopic appendectomy produced conflicting recommendations, and the adequacy of sample sizes is generally unknown. We compared clinical and economic outcomes after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a sample of predetermined statistical power. Methods. A pre-study power analysis suggested that 200 randomized patients would yield 80% power to show a mean decrease of 1.3 days' hospitalization. One hundred ninety-eight patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized prospectively to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Economic analysis included billed charges, total costs, direct costs, and indirect costs associated with treatment. Results. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform than open appendectomy (median, 107 vs 91 minutes; P < .01) and was associated with fewer days to return to a general diet (mean, 1.6 versus 2.3 days; P < .01), a shorter duration of parenteral analgesia (mean, 1.6 versus 2.2 days; P < .01), fewer morphine-equivalent milligrams of parenteral narcotic (median, 14 mg versus 34 mg; P = .001), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean, 2.6 versus 3.4 days; P < .01), and earlier return to full activity (median, 14 versus 21 days; P < .02). However, operative morbidity and time to return to work were comparable. Billed charges and direct costs were not significantly different in the 2 groups ($7711 versus $7146 and $5357 versus $4945, respectively), but total costs (including indirect costs) of laparoscopic appendectomy were, on average, nearly $2400 less, given the shorter length of stay and abbreviated recuperative period ($11,577 versus $13,965). Subgroup analyses suggested the benefit of a laparoscopic approach for uncomplicated appendicitis and for patients with active lifestyles. Conclusions. While laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with statistically significant but clinically questionable advantages over open appendectomy, a laparoscopic approach is relatively less expensive. The estimated difference in total costs of treatment (direct and indirect costs) was at least $2000 in more than 60% of the bootstrapped iterations. The economic significance and implications favoring a laparoscopic approach cannot be ignored.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)390-400
Number of pages11
JournalSurgery
Volume129
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Appendectomy
Economics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Appendicitis
Length of Stay
Return to Work
Narcotics
Operative Time
Health Care Costs
Sample Size
Analgesia
Morphine
Life Style
Hospitalization
Diet
Morbidity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Long, K. H., Bannon, M. P., Zietlow, S. P., Helgeson, E. R., Harmsen, W. S., Smith, C. D., ... Sarr, M. G. (2001). A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: Clinical and economic analyses. Surgery, 129(4), 390-400. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2001.114216

A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy : Clinical and economic analyses. / Long, Kirsten Hall; Bannon, Michael P.; Zietlow, Scott P.; Helgeson, Eva R.; Harmsen, William S.; Smith, C. Daniel; Ilstrup, Duane M.; Baerga-Varela, Yvonne; Sarr, Michael G.

In: Surgery, Vol. 129, No. 4, 2001, p. 390-400.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Long, KH, Bannon, MP, Zietlow, SP, Helgeson, ER, Harmsen, WS, Smith, CD, Ilstrup, DM, Baerga-Varela, Y & Sarr, MG 2001, 'A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: Clinical and economic analyses', Surgery, vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 390-400. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2001.114216
Long, Kirsten Hall ; Bannon, Michael P. ; Zietlow, Scott P. ; Helgeson, Eva R. ; Harmsen, William S. ; Smith, C. Daniel ; Ilstrup, Duane M. ; Baerga-Varela, Yvonne ; Sarr, Michael G. / A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy : Clinical and economic analyses. In: Surgery. 2001 ; Vol. 129, No. 4. pp. 390-400.
@article{0f906f66443b4f1d9e4c38b03d7ade87,
title = "A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: Clinical and economic analyses",
abstract = "Background. Previous randomized studies of laparoscopic appendectomy produced conflicting recommendations, and the adequacy of sample sizes is generally unknown. We compared clinical and economic outcomes after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a sample of predetermined statistical power. Methods. A pre-study power analysis suggested that 200 randomized patients would yield 80{\%} power to show a mean decrease of 1.3 days' hospitalization. One hundred ninety-eight patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized prospectively to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Economic analysis included billed charges, total costs, direct costs, and indirect costs associated with treatment. Results. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform than open appendectomy (median, 107 vs 91 minutes; P < .01) and was associated with fewer days to return to a general diet (mean, 1.6 versus 2.3 days; P < .01), a shorter duration of parenteral analgesia (mean, 1.6 versus 2.2 days; P < .01), fewer morphine-equivalent milligrams of parenteral narcotic (median, 14 mg versus 34 mg; P = .001), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean, 2.6 versus 3.4 days; P < .01), and earlier return to full activity (median, 14 versus 21 days; P < .02). However, operative morbidity and time to return to work were comparable. Billed charges and direct costs were not significantly different in the 2 groups ($7711 versus $7146 and $5357 versus $4945, respectively), but total costs (including indirect costs) of laparoscopic appendectomy were, on average, nearly $2400 less, given the shorter length of stay and abbreviated recuperative period ($11,577 versus $13,965). Subgroup analyses suggested the benefit of a laparoscopic approach for uncomplicated appendicitis and for patients with active lifestyles. Conclusions. While laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with statistically significant but clinically questionable advantages over open appendectomy, a laparoscopic approach is relatively less expensive. The estimated difference in total costs of treatment (direct and indirect costs) was at least $2000 in more than 60{\%} of the bootstrapped iterations. The economic significance and implications favoring a laparoscopic approach cannot be ignored.",
author = "Long, {Kirsten Hall} and Bannon, {Michael P.} and Zietlow, {Scott P.} and Helgeson, {Eva R.} and Harmsen, {William S.} and Smith, {C. Daniel} and Ilstrup, {Duane M.} and Yvonne Baerga-Varela and Sarr, {Michael G.}",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1067/msy.2001.114216",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "129",
pages = "390--400",
journal = "Surgery (United States)",
issn = "0039-6060",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy

T2 - Clinical and economic analyses

AU - Long, Kirsten Hall

AU - Bannon, Michael P.

AU - Zietlow, Scott P.

AU - Helgeson, Eva R.

AU - Harmsen, William S.

AU - Smith, C. Daniel

AU - Ilstrup, Duane M.

AU - Baerga-Varela, Yvonne

AU - Sarr, Michael G.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Background. Previous randomized studies of laparoscopic appendectomy produced conflicting recommendations, and the adequacy of sample sizes is generally unknown. We compared clinical and economic outcomes after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a sample of predetermined statistical power. Methods. A pre-study power analysis suggested that 200 randomized patients would yield 80% power to show a mean decrease of 1.3 days' hospitalization. One hundred ninety-eight patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized prospectively to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Economic analysis included billed charges, total costs, direct costs, and indirect costs associated with treatment. Results. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform than open appendectomy (median, 107 vs 91 minutes; P < .01) and was associated with fewer days to return to a general diet (mean, 1.6 versus 2.3 days; P < .01), a shorter duration of parenteral analgesia (mean, 1.6 versus 2.2 days; P < .01), fewer morphine-equivalent milligrams of parenteral narcotic (median, 14 mg versus 34 mg; P = .001), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean, 2.6 versus 3.4 days; P < .01), and earlier return to full activity (median, 14 versus 21 days; P < .02). However, operative morbidity and time to return to work were comparable. Billed charges and direct costs were not significantly different in the 2 groups ($7711 versus $7146 and $5357 versus $4945, respectively), but total costs (including indirect costs) of laparoscopic appendectomy were, on average, nearly $2400 less, given the shorter length of stay and abbreviated recuperative period ($11,577 versus $13,965). Subgroup analyses suggested the benefit of a laparoscopic approach for uncomplicated appendicitis and for patients with active lifestyles. Conclusions. While laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with statistically significant but clinically questionable advantages over open appendectomy, a laparoscopic approach is relatively less expensive. The estimated difference in total costs of treatment (direct and indirect costs) was at least $2000 in more than 60% of the bootstrapped iterations. The economic significance and implications favoring a laparoscopic approach cannot be ignored.

AB - Background. Previous randomized studies of laparoscopic appendectomy produced conflicting recommendations, and the adequacy of sample sizes is generally unknown. We compared clinical and economic outcomes after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a sample of predetermined statistical power. Methods. A pre-study power analysis suggested that 200 randomized patients would yield 80% power to show a mean decrease of 1.3 days' hospitalization. One hundred ninety-eight patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized prospectively to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Economic analysis included billed charges, total costs, direct costs, and indirect costs associated with treatment. Results. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform than open appendectomy (median, 107 vs 91 minutes; P < .01) and was associated with fewer days to return to a general diet (mean, 1.6 versus 2.3 days; P < .01), a shorter duration of parenteral analgesia (mean, 1.6 versus 2.2 days; P < .01), fewer morphine-equivalent milligrams of parenteral narcotic (median, 14 mg versus 34 mg; P = .001), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean, 2.6 versus 3.4 days; P < .01), and earlier return to full activity (median, 14 versus 21 days; P < .02). However, operative morbidity and time to return to work were comparable. Billed charges and direct costs were not significantly different in the 2 groups ($7711 versus $7146 and $5357 versus $4945, respectively), but total costs (including indirect costs) of laparoscopic appendectomy were, on average, nearly $2400 less, given the shorter length of stay and abbreviated recuperative period ($11,577 versus $13,965). Subgroup analyses suggested the benefit of a laparoscopic approach for uncomplicated appendicitis and for patients with active lifestyles. Conclusions. While laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with statistically significant but clinically questionable advantages over open appendectomy, a laparoscopic approach is relatively less expensive. The estimated difference in total costs of treatment (direct and indirect costs) was at least $2000 in more than 60% of the bootstrapped iterations. The economic significance and implications favoring a laparoscopic approach cannot be ignored.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035072182&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035072182&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/msy.2001.114216

DO - 10.1067/msy.2001.114216

M3 - Article

C2 - 11283528

AN - SCOPUS:0035072182

VL - 129

SP - 390

EP - 400

JO - Surgery (United States)

JF - Surgery (United States)

SN - 0039-6060

IS - 4

ER -