TY - JOUR
T1 - Retrosigmoid versus translabyrinthine approach to acoustic neuroma resection
T2 - A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis
AU - Semaan, Maroun T.
AU - Wick, Cameron C.
AU - Kinder, Kimberly J.
AU - Stuyt, John G.
AU - Chota, Rebecca L.
AU - Megerian, Cliff A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Copyright:
Copyright 2016 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/2/1
Y1 - 2016/2/1
N2 - Objectives/Hypothesis Approach-specific economic data of acoustic neuroma (AN) resection is lacking. The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare adjusted total hospital costs, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and associated factors in AN patients undergoing resection by translabyrinthine (TL) approach versus retrosigmoid (RS) approach. Study Design Retrospective chart review. Methods A total of 113 patients with AN undergoing TL (N = 43) or RS (N = 70) surgical resection between 1999 and 2012 were analyzed. Data including age, health status, preoperative hearing, tumor size, postoperative complications, hospital, ICU LOS, and disposition after discharge were collected from medical records and compared between both groups. Cost data was obtained from the hospital finance department and adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index for 2013. Results There were no significant differences in demographic data, preoperative hearing, preoperative health status, or postoperative complication rate. Total hospital LOS and ICU LOS were significantly longer in the RS compared to the TL group (4.3 ± 3.6 vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 days; P < 0.001, and 1.5 ± 1.1 vs. 1.0 ± 0.5 days; P = 0.015, respectively). Tumors were larger in RS compared to the TL group (2.1 ± 1.0 cm vs. 1.5 ± 0.7 cm, respectively; P = 0.002). When patients were stratified by tumor size < or ≥ 2 cm, the total hospital LOS remained greater in the RS group in both subgroups (< and ≥ 2 cm, P < 0.001, and P = 0.031, respectively). However, there was no difference in the total ICU LOS between both subgroups. The adjusted mean total hospital cost was higher in the RS compared to the TL group ($25,069 ± 14,968 vs. $16,799 ± 5,724; P < 0.001). The adjusted mean total hospital cost was greater in the RS group with tumor < 2 cm (P < 0.001) but not significantly different in patients with tumors ≥ 2 cm. Univariate analysis showed that greater tumor size, poorer preoperative health status, the presence of major postoperative complications, and the RS approach were independently significantly associated with higher total hospital LOS (P = 0.001, P = 0.009, P = 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively) and a higher adjusted total hospital cost (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, P = 0.014, and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion Hospital LOS and total adjusted costs are significantly less for patients undergoing translabyrinthine acoustic neuroma resection compared to the retrosigmoid approach. Many factors appear to influence these differences. Economic considerations in addition to tumor characteristics and surgeon preference should be considered in future acoustic neuroma resections. Level of Evidence 2c. Laryngoscope, 126:S5-S12, 2016.
AB - Objectives/Hypothesis Approach-specific economic data of acoustic neuroma (AN) resection is lacking. The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare adjusted total hospital costs, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and associated factors in AN patients undergoing resection by translabyrinthine (TL) approach versus retrosigmoid (RS) approach. Study Design Retrospective chart review. Methods A total of 113 patients with AN undergoing TL (N = 43) or RS (N = 70) surgical resection between 1999 and 2012 were analyzed. Data including age, health status, preoperative hearing, tumor size, postoperative complications, hospital, ICU LOS, and disposition after discharge were collected from medical records and compared between both groups. Cost data was obtained from the hospital finance department and adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index for 2013. Results There were no significant differences in demographic data, preoperative hearing, preoperative health status, or postoperative complication rate. Total hospital LOS and ICU LOS were significantly longer in the RS compared to the TL group (4.3 ± 3.6 vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 days; P < 0.001, and 1.5 ± 1.1 vs. 1.0 ± 0.5 days; P = 0.015, respectively). Tumors were larger in RS compared to the TL group (2.1 ± 1.0 cm vs. 1.5 ± 0.7 cm, respectively; P = 0.002). When patients were stratified by tumor size < or ≥ 2 cm, the total hospital LOS remained greater in the RS group in both subgroups (< and ≥ 2 cm, P < 0.001, and P = 0.031, respectively). However, there was no difference in the total ICU LOS between both subgroups. The adjusted mean total hospital cost was higher in the RS compared to the TL group ($25,069 ± 14,968 vs. $16,799 ± 5,724; P < 0.001). The adjusted mean total hospital cost was greater in the RS group with tumor < 2 cm (P < 0.001) but not significantly different in patients with tumors ≥ 2 cm. Univariate analysis showed that greater tumor size, poorer preoperative health status, the presence of major postoperative complications, and the RS approach were independently significantly associated with higher total hospital LOS (P = 0.001, P = 0.009, P = 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively) and a higher adjusted total hospital cost (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, P = 0.014, and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion Hospital LOS and total adjusted costs are significantly less for patients undergoing translabyrinthine acoustic neuroma resection compared to the retrosigmoid approach. Many factors appear to influence these differences. Economic considerations in addition to tumor characteristics and surgeon preference should be considered in future acoustic neuroma resections. Level of Evidence 2c. Laryngoscope, 126:S5-S12, 2016.
KW - Acoustic neuroma
KW - cost analysis
KW - hospital length of stay
KW - retrosigmoid
KW - translabyrinthine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957818511&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/lary.25729
DO - 10.1002/lary.25729
M3 - Article
C2 - 26490680
AN - SCOPUS:84957818511
SN - 0023-852X
VL - 126
SP - S5-S12
JO - Laryngoscope
JF - Laryngoscope
ER -