Effect of a disposable automated suturing device on cost and operating room time in benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures

Stuart Hart, Lobat Hashemi, Craig J Sobolewski, Stuart Hart, Lobat Hashemi, Craig J Sobolewski

Abstract

Background and objectives: To determine the effect of a disposable automated laparoscopic suturing device, the Endo Stitch (ES) (Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA), on hospital cost and surgical time in patients undergoing a benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure compared with the use of the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) or traditional laparoscopic suturing technique.

Methods: The Premier Perspective Database (Premier, Charlotte, NC, USA) was used to identify all inpatient hospital discharges with the primary procedure of a total laparoscopic hysterectomy (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 68.41) for benign conditions between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011. Patients were further categorized into 3 groups: (1) those for whom the ES was used during the laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure, (2) those for whom robotic assistance (RA) was used, and (3) those for whom neither ES nor RA (NER) was used. Multivariate analysis was performed to examine the association among the ES, RA, and NER groups with respect to hospital cost, length of stay, and surgery time. The multivariate analysis controlled for the patient's age, race, severity of illness, and comorbid conditions, as well as hospital characteristics, such as bed size, region, and teaching status.

Results: A total of 9308 patients undergoing an inpatient total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011, were eligible for the study. The ES was used in 974 of the patients (10%), RA was used in 3971 (43%), and neither technique was used in 4363 (47%). After adjusting for confounding variables, the mean hospital cost was $1769 (P = .0332) lower, with a 42-minute (P < .001) surgery time savings, for the ES group compared with the RA group. The mean hospitalization cost for the ES group was also $634 (P < .0879) less expensive, with a 21-minute (P = .0131) surgery time savings, compared with the NER group.

Conclusion: Use of a disposable automated laparoscopic suturing device, the ES, is significantly more cost-effective than the use of the da Vinci surgical system or traditional laparoscopic suturing techniques for the performance of a total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure for benign conditions.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure of conflicts of interest and sources of financial support: S.H., speaker and consultant for Covidien, Stryker, and Boston Scientific; L.H., employee of Covidien; and C.J.S., speaker and consultant for Covidien, consultant and stock for Transenterix, and advisory board for CareFusion.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Patient selection flowchart.

References

    1. Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(5):1091–1095
    1. Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, Jamieson DJ, et al. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(1):34.e1–34.e7
    1. Garry R, Fountain J, Mason S. The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy. BMJ. 2004;328(7432):129.
    1. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(3):CD003677.
    1. Walsh CA, Walsh SR, Tang TY, Slack M. Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144(1):3–7
    1. Jacoby VL, Autry A, Jacobson G, Domush R, Nakagawa S, Jacoby A. Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1041–1048
    1. Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr L, Garry R. Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330(7506):1478.
    1. Mäkinen J, Johansson J, Tomás C, et al. Morbidity of 10 110 hysterectomies by type of approach. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(7):1473–1478
    1. Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(3):286–291
    1. Reynolds RK, Advincula AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg. 2006;191(4):555–560
    1. Beste TM, Nelson KH, Daucher JA. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy utilizing a robotic surgical system. JSLS. 2005;9(1):13–15
    1. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Unal E, Nezhat CH, Nezhat F. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2620–2622
    1. Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A, et al. The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(2):438–443
    1. Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C. Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(6):730–738
    1. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(1):92–96
    1. Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, Shi G, Song H, Clarke J. Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD008978.
    1. Sarlos D, Kots LA. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;23:283–288
    1. Adams JB, Schulam PG, Moore RG, Partin AW, Kavoussi LR. New laparoscopic suturing device: initial clinical experience. Urology. 1995;46(2):242–245
    1. Nguyen NT, Mayer KL, Bold RJ, et al. Laparoscopic suturing evaluation among surgical residents. J Surg Res. 2000;93(1):133–136
    1. Pattaras JG, Smith GS, Landman J, Moore RG. Comparison and analysis of laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing devices: preliminary results. J Endourol. 2001;15(2):187–192
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–383
    1. Averill RF, Goldfield N, Hughes JS, et al. All patient refined-diagnosis related groups (APR-DRGs): Ver. 20.0. Wallingford, CT: 3M Health Information Systems; 2003
    1. Intuitive Surgical Investor Presentation Q2 2012. Intuitive Surgical; 2002

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere