BackgroundAlthough endoscopic stenting is increasingly performed, surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ) is still considered the gold standard for relief of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The aim of this study is to compare clinical outcomes and hospital costs between patients undergoing GJ or stenting for management of malignant GOO.MethodsA retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare (MedPAR) database was conducted to identify all inpatient hospitalizations for GJ or endoscopic stenting for malignant GOO during 2007–2008. The main outcome measure evaluated using the MedPAR database was a comparison of the total length of hospital stay (LOS) and costs associated with both techniques. As MedPAR is a claims database that does not provide outcomes at patient level, a single-institution retrospective study was conducted to compare the rates of technical and treatment success, post-procedure LOS, and delayed complications per patient between the two techniques.ResultsThe MedPAR claims data evaluated 425 stenting and 339 GJ hospitalizations. Compared with GJ, median LOS (8 vs. 16 days; p < 0.0001) and median cost (US $15,366 vs. US $27,391; p < 0.0001) per claim were both significantly lower for stenting. Stenting was more commonly performed at urban versus rural hospitals (89 % vs. 11 %; p < 0.0001), teaching versus non-teaching hospitals (59 % vs. 41 %, p = 0.0005), and academic institutions (56 % vs. 44 %; p = 0.0157). The institutional patient data analysis included 29 patients who underwent stenting and 75 who underwent surgical GJ. While both modalities were technically successful and relieved gastric outlet obstruction in all cases, compared with surgical GJ, the median post-procedure LOS was significantly lower for enteral stenting (1.5 vs. 10.7 days, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in rates of delayed complications between stenting and surgical GJ (13.8 % vs. 6.7 %; p = 0.26).ConclusionsWhile the technical and clinical outcomes of surgical GJ and endoscopic stenting appear comparable, stent placement is less costly and is associated with shorter length of hospital stay. Dissemination of endoscopic stenting beyond teaching, academic hospitals located in urban areas as a treatment for malignant GOO is important given its implications for patient care and resource utilization.

No abstract

BackgroundAlthough stent placement is increasingly performed, colostomy still is considered the gold standard for emergent relief of malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). This study aimed to compare hospital costs and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing colostomy and those undergoing stenting for the management of MCO.MethodsA retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) data set was conducted to identify inpatient hospitalizations for colostomy or stent placement for the treatment of colon cancer (2007–2008). The outcomes evaluated using MedPAR compared the total length of hospital stay (LOS) and the costs associated with both techniques. Because MedPAR is a claims data set that does not provide outcomes at a patient level, a single-institution retrospective case–control study was conducted in which each stent placement patient was matched with two colostomy patients during the same period. Outcome measures (institutional data) were used to compare rates of treatment success, postprocedure LOS, and reinterventions between the two cohorts.ResultsThe MedPAR data evaluated 778 stent placements and 5,868 colostomy hospitalizations. There were no differences in gender, age distribution, or comorbidity between the two groups. Compared with colostomy, the median LOS (8 vs. 12 days; p < 0.0001) and the median cost ($15,071 vs. $24,695; p < 0.001) per claim were significantly less for stent placement. Stent placement was more commonly performed at urban versus rural hospitals (84% vs. 16%; p < 0.0001), teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (56% vs. 44%; p = 0.0058) and larger versus smaller institutions (mean bed capacity, 331 vs. 227; p < 0.0001). The institution data included 12 patients who underwent stent placement and 24 who underwent colostomy. Although both methods were technically successful, the median postprocedure LOS (2.17 vs. 10.58 days; p = 0.0004) and the rate of readmissions for complications (0% vs. 25%; p = 0.01) were significantly lower for stent placement.ConclusionAlthough the technical and clinical outcomes for colostomy and stent placement appear comparable, stent placement is less costly and associated with shorter LOS and fewer complications. Dissemination of stent placement beyond large teaching hospitals located in urban areas as a treatment for MCO is important given its implications for patient care and resource use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1523-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Although EUS-FNA is increasingly performed and is less costly, and the rate of surgical biopsies has declined precipitously, the utilization of percutaneous techniques remains prevalent. Training and education are required to disseminate the use of EUS-FNA outside major teaching institutions or foster referral of patients to EUS centers because of implications for patient care and resource use.

Patients undergoing SWL are significantly more likely to require re-treatments than URS patients. SWL patients are also significantly more likely to require ureteral stent placement as a separate event. SWL and URS patients have similar rates of general anesthesia.