Please wait a minute...
Search Asian J Urol Advanced Search
Share 
Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(4): 563-568    doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2023.08.010
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
Effectiveness and economic outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a new surgical shear with an integrated energy system: A retrospective study based on a tertiary hospital database in China
Yi Gaoa,Yu Zhua,Fukang Suna,Yuan Shaoa,Tao Huanga,Wei Hea,Xin Xiea,Lu Chena,Debra Winbergb,Danfeng Xua*()
aRuijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
bTulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Department of Health Policy and Management, New Orleans, LA, USA
下载:  HTML  PDF (613KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
Abstract: 

Objective: This study aimed to demonstrate a new surgical shear with an integrated energy system (Harmonic ACE®+7) value by determining its effectiveness and economic outcomes compared with conventional ultrasonic shears (CUSs) in a real-world setting.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of adults with prostate cancer undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the ACE®+7 shear or CUSs between August 2019 and April 2021 at Shanghai Ruijin Hospital (the headquarters and Luwan Center in China). Demographic and diagnosis information, intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes, and total and categorical costs were collected. Propensity score matching was performed to form the study population for each clinical group. Data were compared between the two groups using t-test and Chi-squared test.

Results: The ACE®+7 was associated with a lower mean number of hemostatic clips used per surgery compared with CUSs (12.8 vs. 19.8, p<0.001), a moderate but not significant difference in mean postoperative drainage duration (6.6 [standard deviation, SD 2.2] days vs. 7.9 [SD 4.1] days, p=0.082), a reduction on mean total drainage volume (275.5 [SD 374.3 mL vs. 492.9 [SD 1495.0] mL, p=0.321), and a lower mean rate of postoperative hemostatic drug usage (16.0% vs. 52.0%, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in total costs between the ACE®+7 and CUS groups.

Conclusion: This study provides real-world data demonstrating that the ACE®+7 shear with an integrated energy system improves clinical outcomes compared with CUSs and can offer cost savings for hospitals and health systems. Using the ACE®+7 during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy allows physicians to help their patients achieve better outcomes and not spend additional money.

Key words:  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy    Surgical shear    Harmonic ACE®+7    Clinical effectiveness    Cost-effectiveness
收稿日期:  2023-03-07           接受日期:  2023-08-22      出版日期:  2024-10-20      发布日期:  2024-11-20      整期出版日期:  2024-10-20
引用本文:    
. [J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(4): 563-568.
Yi Gao, Yu Zhu, Fukang Sun, Yuan Shao, Tao Huang, Wei He, Xin Xie, Lu Chen, Debra Winberg, Danfeng Xu. Effectiveness and economic outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a new surgical shear with an integrated energy system: A retrospective study based on a tertiary hospital database in China. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(4): 563-568.
链接本文:  
http://www.ajurology.com/CN/10.1016/j.ajur.2023.08.010  或          http://www.ajurology.com/CN/Y2024/V11/I4/563
  
Baseline characteristic ACE®+7 groupa (n=70) CUS groupa (n=123) p-Value
Age, year 68.6±6.6 68.9±6.5 0.736
Study site 0.005
Headquarters 35 (50.0) 88 (71.5)
Ruijin Luwan center 35 (50.0) 35 (28.5)
BMI, kg/m2 24.5±2.4 23.9±2.7 0.156
Comorbidity of hypertension 34 (48.6) 61 (49.6) 1.000
Comorbidity of diabetes 13 (18.6) 18 (14.6) 0.608
Preoperative abnormal coagulation function 36 (51.4) 42 (34.1) 0.028
Gleason score 7.5±1.0 7.3±0.9 0.115
Lymph node dissection during surgery 57 (81.4) 63 (51.2) <0.001
Pelvic adhesiolysis during surgery 35 (50.0) 58 (47.2) 0.818
  
Baseline characteristic ACE®+7 groupa (n=50) CUS groupa (n=50) p-Value
Age, year 68.2±6.2 68.4±7.1 0.858
Study site 0.682
Headquarters 32 (64.0) 29 (58.0)
Ruijin Luwan center 18 (36.0) 21 (42.0)
BMI, kg/m2 24.3±2.6 23.6±3.2 0.224
Comorbidity of hypertension 26 (52.0) 25 (50.0) 1.000
Comorbidity of diabetes 9 (18.0) 7 (14.0) 0.785
Preoperative abnormal coagulation function 20 (40.0) 21 (42.0) 1.000
Gleason score 7.6±1.0 7.7±1.0 0.477
Lymph node dissection during surgery 39 (78.0) 37 (74.0) 0.815
Pelvic adhesiolysis during surgery 32 (64.0) 25 (50.0) 0.226
  
Clinical outcome ACE®+7 groupa (n=50) CUS groupa (n=50) p-Value
Intraoperative hemostatic clip usage, n 12.8±5.8 19.8±6.6 <0.001
Intraoperative blood loss, mL 191.1±152.8 204.2±181.6 0.782
Transfusion 1 (2.0) 3 (6.0) 0.610
Operation time, min 162.6±44.8 158.0±37.4 0.586
Postoperative hemostatic drug usage 8 (16.0) 26 (52.0) <0.001
Postoperative length of drainage, day 6.6±2.2 7.9±4.1 0.082
Postoperative drainage volume within 24 h, mL 72.0±59.1 133.4±282.0 0.135
Postoperative drainage volume within 48 h, mL 143.4±135.5 239.6±495.9 0.189
Postoperative total drainage volume, mL 275.5±374.3 492.9±1495.0 0.321
Length of stay, dayb 10.7±3.4 11.3±4.8 0.413
Postoperative length of stay, dayc 7.9±3.0 8.6±4.2 0.337
Re-operation during the LRP procedure hospitalization 0 0 NA
Postoperative readmission within 30 days 0 0 NA
  
Cost, RMB ACE®+7 groupa (n=50) CUS groupa (n=50) Differenceb p-Value
Total cost 42 675.0±5134.5 41 426.3±7623.7 1248.7 0.349
Device cost 23 308.4±5702.0 19 467.5±5946.7 3840.9 0.002
Treatment cost 3287.0±3902.9 4412.4±4097.2 -1125.4 0.176
Pharmaceutical cost 6800.3±4169.0 7436.4±4481.4 -636.1 0.478
Nursing cost 555.6±275.8 649.9±352.1 -94.3 0.149
Board and room cost 723.0±636.0 858.7±694.4 -135.7 0.325
Lab test cost 2636.8±805.9 3132.3±1280.2 -495.5 0.025
Examination cost 3591.3±763.4 3792.1±1178.1 -200.8 0.324
Transfusion cost 20.0±141.4 49.2±192.0 -29.2 0.400
Oxygen therapy cost 44.3±8.4 62.9±50.8 -18.6 0.012
TCM cost 996.5±1034.8 765.4±999.0 231.1 0.275
Diagnosis cost 376.0±88.7 384.4±106.0 -8.4 0.677
Other cost 335.8±355.5 415.1±426.8 -79.3 0.328
Total cost excluding intervention costc 38 357.8±5127.1 39 983.1±7618.3 -1625.3 0.223
  
[1] Speight J, Holmes-Truscott E, Hendrieckx C, Skovlund S, Cooke D. Assessing the impact of diabetes on quality of life: what have the past 25 years taught us? Diabet Med 2020; 37:483-92.
[2] Schatten H. Brief overview of prostate cancer statistics, grading, diagnosis and treatment strategies. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018; 1095:1-14.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-95693-0_1 pmid: 30229546
[3] Chaussy CG, Thüroff S. High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of prostate cancer: a review. J Endourol 2017; 31:S30-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0548.
[4] Yu W, Zhou L. Early diagnosis of prostate cancer from the perspective of Chinese physicians. J Cancer 2020; 11:3264-73.
doi: 10.7150/jca.36697 pmid: 32231732
[5] Chinese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer 2018 (English version). Chin J Cancer Res 2019; 31:67-83.
[6] Kondrup JD, Anderson F, Sylvester B, Branning M. The new HARMONIC ACE®+7 shears: a game changer in ultrasonic hemostasis. Surg Technol Int 2014; 25:24-7.
pmid: 25419951
[7] Timm RW, Asher RM, Tellio KR, Welling AL, Clymer JW, Amaral JF. Sealing vessels up to 7 mm in diameter solely with ultrasonic technology. Med Devices (Auckl) 2014; 7:263-71.
[8] Church JT, McLeod JS, Coughlin MA, Bergin IL, Perkins EM, Hoffman HR, et al. An early investigation into possible alternatives to stapled hysterotomy in open fetal surgery. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36:742-50.
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1673664 pmid: 30372770
[9] Singleton D, Juncosa-Melvin N, Scoggins P, Paulin-Curlee G, Cummings J, Ricketts C. Intelligent ultrasonic energy: new adaptive tissue technology in HARMONIC shears. J Surg 2020; 8:178-83.
[10] Zurawin R, Pickron T, Blackstone R. Intelligent ultrasonic energy delivered by HARMONIC® devices with adaptive tissue technology. https://www.academia.edu/32143407/Intelligent_Ultrasonic_Energy_Delivered_by_HARMONIC_devices_with_Adaptive_Tissue_Technology. [Accessed November 1, 2021].
[11] Benedetto U, Head SJ, Angelini GD, Blackstone EH. Statistical primer: propensity score matching and its alternatives. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg 2018; 53:1112-7.
[12] Dokmak S, Ftériche FS, Aussilhou B, Lévy P, Ruszniewski P, Cros J, et al. The largest European single-center experience: 300 laparoscopic pancreatic resections. J Am Coll Surg 2017; 225:226-34.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.04.004.
[13] Curnow J, Pasalic L, Favaloro EJ. Why do patients bleed? Surg J 2016; 2:e29-43. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1579657.
[14] Marietta M, Facchini L, Pedrazzi P, Busani S, Torelli G. Pathophysiology of bleeding in surgery. Transplant Proc 2006; 38:812-4.
[15] Franco Moreno AI, Martín Díaz RM, García Navarro MJ. Direct oral anticoagulants: an update. Med Clin 2018; 151:198-206.
[16] Yip W, Fu H, Chen AT, Zhai T, Jian W, Xu R, et al. 10 years of health-care reform in China: progress and gaps in Universal Health Coverage. Lancet 2019; 394:1192-204.
doi: S0140-6736(19)32136-1 pmid: 31571602
[17] Zhang J, Xian TZ, Wu MX, Li C, Pan Q, Guo LX. Comparison of the effects of twice-daily exenatide and insulin on carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a 52-week randomized, open-label, controlled trial. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2020; 19:48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-020-01014-7.
doi: 10.1186/s12933-020-01014-7 pmid: 32334592
No related articles found!
[1] Brian W. Chao, Daniel D. Eun. Robotic reconstructive surgery: The time has arrived[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 339 -340 .
[2] Tenny R. Zhang, Ashley Alford, Lee C. Zhao. Summarizing the evidence for robotic-assisted bladder neck reconstruction: Systematic review of patency and incontinence outcomes[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 341 -347 .
[3] Jonathan Rosenfeld, Devin Boehm, Aidan Raikar, Devyn Coskey, Matthew Lee, Emily Ji, Ziho Lee. A review of complications after ureteral reconstruction[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 348 -356 .
[4] Luis G. Medina, Randall A. Lee, Valeria Celis, Veronica Rodriguez, Jaime Poncel, Aref S. Sayegh, Rene Sotelo. Robotic management of urinary fistula[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 357 -365 .
[5] Shuaishuai Chai, Hao Zhang, Gong Cheng, Jiawei Chen, Xincheng Gao, Yuancheng Zhou, Xingyuan Xiao, Bing Li. Minimally invasive reconstruction of extensive mid-lower ureteral strictures using a bilateral Boari flap[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 377 -383 .
[6] David Strauss, Eric Cho, Matthew Loecher, Matthew Lee, Daniel Eun. Description of a novel robotic early post-prostatectomy anastomotic repair technique and institutional outcomes[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 366 -372 .
[7] Matthew Lee, Elizabeth Nagoda, David Strauss, Matthew Loecher, Michael Stifelman, Lee Zhao. Role of buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty in the surgical management of pyeloplasty failure[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 373 -376 .
[8] Yiren Yang, Xinxin Gan, Wei Zhang, Baohua Zhu, Zhao Huangfu, Xiaolei Shi, Linhui Wang. Research progress of the Hippo signaling pathway in renal cell carcinoma[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(4): 511 -520 .
[9] Sidhartha Kalra, Atanu Kumar Pal, Lalgudi Narayanan Dorairajan. Understanding female urinary continence—lessons from complications of female urethral surgery[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 504 -506 .
[10] Claudia-Gabriela Moldovanu. Virtual and augmented reality systems and three-dimensional printing of the renal model—novel trends to guide preoperative planning for renal cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(4): 521 -529 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed