Search

The time has come to subject surgery to the same rigours of economic assessment that other health-care sectors are already receiving--namely, the comparative assessment of costs and benefits. The surgical management of gallstones provides a good example of the role of economics in surgery. Gallstone disease is common and patients are usually referred to a surgeon, but the threshold for intervention is not agreed and varies widely, with considerable implications for resources. Gallstone removal has been subject to much innovation over the past 10 years, yet economic assessment of laparoscopic and "mini" cholecystectomy and of gallstone lithotripsy is rare, despite the fact that operation rates have increased by up to 50% in some countries. For surgery to compete with other interventions, economic assessment of new surgical techniques will be increasingly important. This assessment should be based on well-conducted clinical trials in which interventions are provided in a routine service setting, and in which benefits are assessed among other things on the basis of the patient's perceived quality of life. Economic assessment often needs data beyond those collected in a clinical trial, however pragmatic the trial design, so modelling will often be required, incorporating a range of sources of evidence. Finally, evidence alone will not be enough to promote cost-effective practices. The take-up of surgical techniques will always be affected by the way hospitals and surgeons are remunerated. Affecting practice requires a realistic system of reimbursement that reflects evidence on cost effectiveness.

Acquiring expensive, new medical technology requires an evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness, safety, profitability, feasibility, and risk of a project in the context of the hospital's social responsibility and institutional strategy. A case study of the decision to bring biliary lithotripsy to Strong Memorial Hospital illustrates how these criteria offer managers a coherent approach to difficult and consequential decisions about acquiring medical technology.

In order to strike the most favorable balance between health benefits and costs, three treatment modalities for symptomatic cholelithiasis were compared in a cost-effectiveness study: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), conventional cholecystectomy (CC), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Data were analyzed from 55 patients who were treated by ESWL, 45 patients who had CC, and 47 patients who had LC. The study was performed by analysis of patients charts and a written questionnaire. After ESWL 35% of the patients were free of stones, 23% had fragments < or = 5 mm, and 42% had fragments > 5 mm at 1-year follow-up. Persistent complaints were reported by 59% after ESWL, 11% after CC, and 14% after LC (P < 0.001). New complaints arose in 12% after ESWL, 11% after CC, and in 5% after LC (P = NS). Patient appreciation score was highest for LC and lowest for ESWL. Mean hospital stay was 2.4 days for ESWL, 10 days for CC, and 3.5 days for LC. Overall costs of treatment were: $5,066 for ESWL; $5,893 for CC; and $3,117 for LC. This study reveals that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the most effective treatment of the large majority of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis. ESWL should only be considered in the case of a solitary, relatively small, completely radiolucent stone.

The techniques of cost utility analysis (CUA) were used to evaluate the treatment of gallstone disease by open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy and by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). The application of the techniques in this context raised three methodological questions which are not satisfactorily resolved in the literature. The first is whether an ex ante or ex post perspective is best adopted for the measurement of quality of life (QoL). The second is the method for converting a short term deterioration in QoL followed by full health into QALYs and the reliability of the methods available. The third is the issue of indirect costs which, in the context of a temporary disease state, cannot be easily avoided. The economic evaluation found laparoscopic cholecystectomy to be generally superior than the competitor technologies (entailing lower costs and better outcomes). However, the results were sensitive to assumptions about the perspective for measuring benefits and the inclusion of indirect costs.

To determine the potential role of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of symptomatic gallstone patients in France, a simulation model evaluated the health and economic effects of three different treatment strategies. Decision analysis of conventional cholecystectomy alone and either of two strategies using a combination of biliary lithotripsy and conventional cholecystectomy reveals that a strategy employing biliary ESWL results in a significant number of successfully treated patients, thus avoiding the risks and costs of abdominal surgery. Moreover, cost analysis shows that expanding the use of lithotripsy to all patients for whom the procedure is indicated increases the average cost per successfully treated patient, but, more importantly, decreases the overall costs incurred by the cohort. From a societal viewpoint, a policy using biliary ESWL in appropriate patients is superior to one of cholecystectomy alone, from both clinical and economic perspectives.

Gallstone lithotripsy (LITHO) was performed on 52 patients who underwent 107 procedures. Two hundred sixty-seven gallstone patients were screened and 215 (81%) were excluded. Excessive stone burden and nonvisualization by oral cholecystogram (OCG) were the most common reasons for exclusion. The hospital course of 100 excluded patients who later underwent elective cholecystectomy was evaluated for length of hospital stay (2.3 days) and total cost of treatment ($3685.00). Successful fragmentation to less than 5 mm was achieved in 43 LITHO patients (83%). Five LITHO patients (10%) required conversion to operative management. Complications of LITHO included acute cholecystitis (1 of 52 patients) and biliary colic (17 of 52 patients, or 33%). Multiple procedures in one patient were common. Costs for LITHO were calculated in two ways: first the individual cost for each of the 52 candidates; second the cost for successful LITHO was calculated by excluding five patients who required operation as well as five patients (10%) who are predicted failures of LITHO. Including the preoperative evaluation, treatment, recovery room, and follow-up, the individual LITHO cost for 52 patients was $8275.00. If the same total expenditure is calculated after excluding patients who required operation and those predicted to fail, the cost per 'successful' LITHO procedure was $10,245. The cost of 1 year of bile acid therapy is $1949.00 or $2413.00 per 'successful' procedure. Follow-up costs were $1232.00 per patient or $1525.00 per 'successful' procedure. The added LITHO cost incurred by screening eventual noncandidates was $904.00 per successful procedure. The sum of these individual costs was $15,087.00 per success, as compared to $3685.00 for cholecystectomy. No allowance was made for cost of stone recurrence. Lithotripsy costs appear to be sufficiently high to render the procedure unlikely to emerge as the treatment of choice.