• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Open Versus Endoscopic Component Separation – a Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Open Versus Endoscopic Component Separation – a Cost Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND: Component separation technique (CST) has traditionally been performed using an open approach to repair complex abdominal wall hernias. However, major wound morbidities may ensue from the large lipocutaneous skin flaps. Minimally invasive endoscopic approaches have recently been described. It is unclear if the additional cost of endoscopic instruments outweighs any clinical benefits gained from avoiding skin flap related wound morbidity. We report the economic impact of open versus endoscopic component separation in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

METHODS: All patients undergoing open and endoscopic CST between 2005 and 2009 by a single surgeon at Case Medical Center were retrospectively identified. Length of stay and financial data were obtained for the primary admission. Direct and Indirect costs were evaluated. Direct costs were itemized as: operating room supplies/time, anesthesia, ICU, floor care, laboratory, imaging, pharmacy and supportive therapy. Median and interquartile ranges (IQR) were evaluated by Wilcoxon rank sum test with a p-value of <0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS: Forty-three patients were identified. One mortality in the open group on post-operative day three was not analyzed leaving 21 patients in each group. There was a two day difference in hospital length of stay between open and endoscopic CST (p-value 0.06). Direct costs were higher in the open [$15,537] compared to the endoscopic [$7,461] patients (p-value 0.14). Indirect costs were also higher in the open group [$12,638 vs $6,340] (p-value 0.13). No difference was found in the subgroups of itemized direct costs (see Table 1).

Table 1: Length of Stay and Cost Analysis For Open Versus Endoscopic Component Separation In Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction (2005-2009)

Variable Open CST (IQR) [n=21] Endo CST (IQR) [n=21] p-value
Length of Stay (days) 9 (6 – 18) 7 (6 – 8) 0.06
Direct Costs ($) 15,537 (6,385 – 27,072) 7,461 (6,760 – 11,413) 0.14
Operating Room Supplies 1,660 (708 – 6,736) 1,512 (1,094 – 3,643) 0.85
Operating Room time 1,874 (1,764 – 2,072) 1,910 (1,720 – 2,072) 0.76
Anesthesia 743 (660 – 830) 767 (718 – 808) 0.46
SICU 4,830 (2,352 – 13,753) [n=10] 1,538 (1,264 – 1,835) [n=6] 0.14
Floor Care 2,823 (1,807 – 3,514) 2,145 (1,795 – 2,551) 0.16
Laboratory 304 (131 – 687) 179 (54 – 328) 0.09
Imaging 639 (103 – 1,574) [n=17] 310 (211 – 453) [n=15] 0.46
Pharmacy 1,352 (682 – 4,586) 735 (413 – 1,336) 0.08
Supportive therapy 270 (123 – 1,891) [n=20] 152 (26 – 353) [n=18] 0.07
Indirect Costs ($) 12,638 (5,468 – 24,186) 6,340 (5,714 – 9,392) 0.13

CONCLUSIONS: Use of endoscopic component separation technique for complex abdominal wall reconstruction decreased length of stay without increasing hospital costs. Lower overall direct and indirect costs were noted in the endoscopic component separation group with the largest differences in laboratory, pharmacy and supportive therapy direct costs.


Session: Podium Presentation

Program Number: S024

57

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals