Surgery (Austin & Northern Health) - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Health economic implications of postoperative complications following liver resection surgery: a systematic review
    Cosic, L ; Ma, R ; Churilov, L ; Nikfarjam, M ; Christophi, C ; Weinberg, L (WILEY, 2019-12)
    BACKGROUND: Limited data exists concerning the health economics of liver resection, with even less information on the costs emerging from complications, despite this remaining an important target from a health economic perspective. Our objective was to describe the financial burden of complications following liver resection. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search and included studies reporting resource use of in-hospital complications during the index liver resection admission. All indications for liver resection were considered. All techniques were considered. Data was collected using a data extraction table and a narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible articles. There was considerable heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations and outcome definitions. We found weak evidence of increased costs associated with major liver resection compared to minor resections. We found robust evidence supporting the increasing economic burden arising from complications after liver resection. Acceptable evidence for increased cost due to the presence and grade of complication was found. Strong evidence concerning the association of length of stay with costs was demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: The presence and grade of complications increase hospital cost across diverse settings. The costing methodology should be transparent and complication grading systems should be consistent in future studies.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The financial impact of postoperative complications following liver resection
    Cosic, L ; Ma, R ; Churilov, L ; Debono, D ; Nikfarjam, M ; Christophi, C ; Weinberg, L (LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2019-07)
    The aim of the study was to determine the financial burden of complications and examine the cost differentials between complicated and uncomplicated hospital stays, including the differences in cost due to extent of resection and operative technique.Liver resection carries a high financial cost. Despite improvements in perioperative care, postoperative morbidity remains high. The contribution of postoperative complications to the cost of liver resection is poorly quantified, and there is little data to help guide cost containment strategies.Complications for 317 consecutive adult patients undergoing liver resection were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Patients were stratified based on the grade of their worst complication to assess the contribution of morbidity to resource use of specific cost centers. Costs were calculated using an activity-based costing methodology.Complications dramatically increased median hospital cost ($22,954 vs $15,593, P < .001). Major resection cost over $10,000 more than minor resection and carried greater morbidity (82% vs 59%, P < .001). Similarly, open resection cost more than laparoscopic resection ($21,548 vs $15,235, P < .001) and carried higher rates of complications (72% vs 41.5%, P < .001). Hospital cost increased with increasing incidence and severity of complications. Complications increased costs across all cost centers. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade I and II) were shown to significantly increase costs compared with uncomplicated patients.Liver resection continues to carry a high incidence of complications, and these result in a substantial financial burden. Hospital cost and length of stay increase with greater severity and number of complications. Our findings provide an in-depth analysis by stratifying total costs by cost centers, therefore guiding future economic studies and strategies aimed at cost containment for liver resection.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Goal directed fluid therapy for major liver resection: A multicentre randomized controlled trial
    Weinberg, L ; Ianno, D ; Churilov, L ; Mcguigan, S ; Mackley, L ; Banting, J ; Shen, SH ; Riedel, B ; Nikfarjam, M ; Christophi, C (ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2019-09)
    BACKGROUND: The effect a restrictive goal directed therapy (GDT) fluid protocol combined with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme on hospital stay for patients undergoing major liver resection is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre randomized controlled pilot trial evaluating whether a patient-specific, surgery-specific intraoperative restrictive fluid optimization algorithm would improve duration of hospital stay and reduce perioperative fluid related complications. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants were enrolled. The median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 7.0 days (7.0:8.0) days in the restrictive fluid optimization algorithm group (Restrict group) vs. 8.0 days (6.0:10.0) in the conventional care group (Conventional group) (Incidence rate ratio 0.85; 95% Confidence Interval 0.71:1.1; p = 0.17). No statistically significant difference in expected number of complications per patient between groups was identified (IRR 0.85; 95%CI: 0.45-1.60; p = 0.60). Patients in the Restrict group had lower intraoperative fluid balances: 808 mL (571:1565) vs. 1345 mL (900:1983) (p = 0.04) and received a lower volume of fluid per kg/hour intraoperatively: 4.3 mL/kg/hr (2.6:5.8) vs. 6.0 mL/kg/hr (4.2:7.6); p = 0.03. No significant differences in the proportion of patients who received vasoactive drugs intraoperatively (p = 0.56) was observed. CONCLUSION: In high-volume hepatobiliary surgical units, the addition of a fluid restrictive intraoperative cardiac output-guided algorithm, combined with a standard ERAS protocol did not significantly reduce length of hospital stay or fluid related complications. Our findings are hypothesis-generating and a larger confirmatory study may be justified.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Restrictive intraoperative fluid optimisation algorithm improves outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: A prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial
    Weinberg, L ; Ianno, D ; Churilov, L ; Chao, I ; Scurrah, N ; Rachbuch, C ; Banting, J ; Muralidharan, V ; Story, D ; Bellomo, R ; Christophi, C ; Nikfarjam, M ; Hills, RK (PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2017-09-07)
    We aimed to evaluate perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without a cardiac output goal directed therapy (GDT) algorithm. We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial in four high volume hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery centres. We evaluated whether the additional impact of a intraoperative fluid optimisation algorithm would influence the amount of fluid delivered, reduce fluid related complications, and improve length of hospital stay. Fifty-two consecutive adult patients were recruited. The median (IQR) duration of surgery was 8.6 hours (7.1:9.6) in the GDT group vs. 7.8 hours (6.8:9.0) in the usual care group (p = 0.2). Intraoperative fluid balance was 1005mL (475:1873) in the GDT group vs. 3300mL (2474:3874) in the usual care group (p<0.0001). Total volume of fluid administered intraoperatively was also lower in the GDT group: 2050mL (1313:2700) vs. 4088mL (3400:4525), p<0.0001 and vasoactive medications were used more frequently. There were no significant differences in proportions of patients experiencing overall complications (p = 0.179); however, fewer complications occurred in the GDT group: 44 vs. 92 (Incidence Rate Ratio: 0.41; 95%CI 0.24 to 0.69, p = 0.001). Median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 9.5 days (IQR: 7.0, 14.3) in the GDT vs. 12.5 days in the usual care group (IQR: 9.0, 22.3) for an Incidence Rate Ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.85, p = 0.002). In conclusion, using a surgery-specific, patient-specific goal directed restrictive fluid therapy algorithm in this cohort of patients, can justify using enough fluid without causing oedema, yet as little fluid as possible without causing hypovolaemia i.e. "precision" fluid therapy. Our findings support the use of a perioperative haemodynamic optimization plan that prioritizes preservation of cardiac output and organ perfusion pressure by judicious use of fluid therapy, rational use of vasoactive drugs and timely application of inotropic drugs. They also suggest the need for further larger studies to confirm its findings.