Cost minimization analysis of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol: a single-centre, case-matched study

• Main Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr, Mateusz Wierdak, Michał Nowakowski, Magdalena Pisarska, Maciej Stanek, Michał Kisielewski, Maciej Matłok, Piotr Major, Stanisław Kłęk, Andrzej Budzyński
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Termedia Publishing House 2016-03-01
• Series: Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques
• Subjects: <i>enhanced recovery; colorectal cancer; laparoscopy; perioperative management; postoperative complications; fast-track</i>
• Online Access: https://www.termedia.pl/Cost-minimization-analysis-of-laparoscopic-surgery-for-colorectal-cancer-within-the-enhanced-recovery-after-surgery-ERAS-protocol-a-single-centre-case-matched-study,42,27135,1,1.html

Introduction: The goal of modern medical treatment is to provide high quality medical care in a cost-effective environment. Aim : To assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery combined with the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol (ERP) in Poland. Material and methods : We designed a single-centre, case-matched study. Economic and clinical data were collected in 3 groups of patients (33 patients in each group): group 1 – patients undergoing laparoscopy with ERP; group 2 – laparoscopy without ERP; group 3 – open resection without ERP. An independent administrative officer, not involved in the treatment process, matched patients for age, sex and type of resection. Primary outcome was cost analysis. It was carried out incorporating institutional costs: hospital bed stay, anaesthesia, surgical procedure and equipment, drugs and complications. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), readmission and complication rate. Results : Cost of laparoscopic procedure alone was significantly more expensive than open resection. However, implementation of the ERAS protocol reduced additional costs. Total cost per patient in group 1 was significantly lower than in groups 2 and 3 (EUR 1826 vs. EUR 2355.3 vs. EUR 2459.5, p < 0.0001). Median LOS was 3, 6 and 9 days in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were noted in 5 (15.2%), 6 (18.2%) and 13 (39.4%) patients in groups 1, 2, 3 respectively (p = 0.0435). Conclusions : In a low medical care expenditure country, minimally invasive surgery combined with ERP can be a safe and a cost-effective alternative to open surgery with traditional perioperative care.