Randomized clinical trial comparing the cost and effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealers versus clips and vascular staplers for laparoscopic colorectal resection

✍ Scribed by M. Adamina; B. J. Champagne; L. Hoffman; M. B. Ermlich; C. P. Delaney

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2011
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 135 KB
• Volume: 98
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0007-1323
• DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7679

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

Background

The widespread use of laparoscopy has resulted in a variety of instruments being used routinely for vascular control. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealer (BVS) compared with clips and vascular stapler (CVS) in straight laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Methods

Patients scheduled for elective colorectal resection, including benign and malignant diseases, were randomized to either BVS or CVS for vascular control. Patients whose operation was converted to an open approach before pedicle ligation were excluded. The primary endpoints were duration of operation, including time taken to control vascular pedicles, and cost of disposable instruments for vascular control.

Results

Of 114 patients randomized to BVS (60 patients) or CVS (54), 14 did not receive the allocated vascular control device, leaving 55 and 45 respectively for analysis. The BVS reduced the time spent for vascular control by a mean of 6·9 min (P = 0·031) and reduced the cost of disposable instruments for vascular control by US $ 80·7 per patient (P = 0·043). For total colectomy, the BVS reduced the operating time by 103·6 min (P = 0·023) and the time taken for vascular control by 16·8 min (P = 0·022). For left colectomy, it decreased the time to vascular control by 9·3 min (P = 0·021). In multivariable analysis, the cost of disposable instruments for vascular control was independently reduced by randomization to BVS, type of procedure, female sex and estimated blood loss. The mean cost reduction was $ 88·2 for left colectomy (P = 0·037), $ 377·7 (P = 0·005) for total colectomy and $ 366·9 (P = 0·012) for proctectomy. Conversely, use of the BVS increased the cost of instruments used for vascular control in right colectomy by $ 92·6 (P = 0·012).

Conclusion

BVS devices are expedient and cost-efficient in proctectomy, left and total colectomy procedures. Registration number: NCT00487409 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).