A Yoo

Assessing the real-world effect of laparoscopic bariatric surgery on the management of obesity-related comorbidities: A retrospective matched cohort study using a US Claims Database.

To evaluate the real‐world effect of laparoscopic bariatric surgery, comprising adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), laparoscopic Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), on the management of obesity‐related comorbidities.

Comparison of economic and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery with powered versus manual endoscopic surgical staplers

Abstract Aims: To compare economic and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRY) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) with use of powered vs manual endoscopic surgical staplers. Materials and methods: Patients (aged ≥21 years) who underwent LRY or LSG during a hospital admission (January 1, 2012–September 30, 2015) were identified from the Premier Perspective Hospital Database. Use of powered vs manual staplers was identified from hospital administrative billing records. Multivariable analyses were used to compare the following outcomes between the powered and manual stapler groups, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and hospital-level clustering: hospital length of stay (LOS), total hospital costs, medical/surgical supply costs, room and board costs, operating room costs, operating room time, discharge status, bleeding/transfusion during the hospital admission, and 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause readmissions. Results: The powered and manual stapler groups comprised 9,851 patients (mean age = 44.6 years; 79.3% female) and 21,558 patients (mean age = 45.0 years; 78.0% female), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, adjusted mean hospital LOS was 2.1 days for both the powered and manual stapler groups (p = .981). Adjusted mean total hospital costs (

The clinical and economic burden of significant bleeding during lung resection surgery: A retrospective matched cohort analysis of real-world data.

12,415 vs

Comparative Analysis of Hospital Length of Stay and Discharge Status of Two Contemporary Primary Total Knee Systems

13,547, p = .003), adjusted mean supply costs (

Economic burden of cancer among patients with surgical resections of the lung, rectum, liver and uterus: results from a US hospital database claims analysis

4,629 vs

Rate and Healthcare Utilization (Los and Costs) of Adhesion Related Complications after Colon Resection Procedures

5,217, p = .011), and adjusted mean operating room costs (

Association Between Body Mass Index Categories, Prevalence of Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, & Total Healthcare Costs Among Patients Who Are Overweight or Obese

4,126 vs

Incremental Burden of Cancer in Patients Undergoing Hepatic Resections: Results From A National Hospital Billing Data

4,413, p = .009) were significantly lower in the powered vs manual stapler group. The adjusted rate of bleeding and/or transfusion during the hospital admission (2.46% vs 3.22%, p = .025) was significantly lower in the powered vs manual stapler group. The adjusted rates of 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause readmissions were similar between the groups (all p > .05). Sub-analysis by manufacturer showed similar results. Limitations: This observational study cannot establish causal linkages. Conclusions: In this analysis of patients who underwent LRY or LSG, the use of powered staplers was associated with better economic outcomes, and a lower rate of bleeding/transfusion vs manual staplers in the real-world setting.

Rate and Healthcare Utilization (Los And Costs) of Adhesion Related Complications after Liver Resection Surgery

Abstract Objectives: The objective of this retrospective study was to quantify the clinical and economic burden of significant bleeding in lung resection surgery in the US. Methods: This study utilized 2009–2012 data from the Premier Perspective DatabaseTM. Adult patients with primary pulmonary lobectomy or segmentectomy procedures were categorized by the surgical approach (VATS vs open) and primary diagnosis (primary or metastatic lung cancer vs non-lung cancer). Patients requiring ≥3 units of blood products with at least 1 unit of PRBCs: “significant bleeding” cohort; those requiring <3 units: “non-significant bleeding” cohort; and those not requiring blood products: “no bleeding” cohort. A matched cohort analysis was performed between the “significant bleeding” and the “no bleeding cohort” using matching variables: hospital, lung cancer diagnosis, year of surgery, APR-DRG severity score, procedure type and approach, age, and gender. Results: The “All-patient” cohort comprised 21,429 patients: 213 “significant bleeding”; 2,780 “non-significant bleeding”; and 18,436 “no bleeding”. Overall incidence of significant chest bleeding was 0.99%. Patients from “significant bleeding” cohort and “non-significant bleeding” cohort had 2.5 days and 2 days (p < 0.0001) longer length of stay in the hospital compared to those in the “no bleeding” cohort, respectively. Overall, hospital costs for “significant bleeding” cohort were higher than “no bleeding” cohort for those who were covered under Medicare (

Validation Of Comorbidity Indices (Charlson And Elixhauser) Computed In Cross Sectional Hospital Billing Data

59,871 vs