Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The inpatient burden of abdominal and gynecological adhesiolysis in the US

  • Vanja Sikirica1,
  • Bela Bapat2,
  • Sean D Candrilli2Email author,
  • Keith L Davis2,
  • Malcolm Wilson3 and
  • Alan Johns4
BMC Surgery201111:13

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-11-13

Received: 5 January 2011

Accepted: 9 June 2011

Published: 9 June 2011

Abstract

Background

Adhesions are fibrous bands of scar tissue, often a result of surgery, that form between internal organs and tissues, joining them together abnormally. Postoperative adhesions frequently occur following abdominal surgery, and are associated with a large economic burden. This study examines the inpatient burden of adhesiolysis in the United States (i.e., number and rate of events, cost, length of stay [LOS]).

Methods

Hospital discharge data for patients with primary and secondary adhesiolysis were analyzed using the 2005 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Procedures were aggregated by body system.

Results

We identified 351,777 adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations: 23.2% for primary and 76.8% for secondary adhesiolysis. The average LOS was 7.8 days for primary adhesiolysis. We found that 967,332 days of care were attributed to adhesiolysis-related procedures, with inpatient expenditures totaling $2.3 billion ($1.4 billion for primary adhesiolysis; $926 million for secondary adhesiolysis). Hospitalizations for adhesiolysis increased steadily by age and were higher for women. Of secondary adhesiolysis procedures, 46.3% involved the female reproductive tract, resulting in 57,005 additional days of care and $220 million in attributable costs.

Conclusions

Adhesiolysis remain an important surgical problem in the United States. Hospitalization for this condition leads to high direct surgical costs, which should be of interest to providers and payers.

Keywords

Adhesions adhesiolysis abdominal gynecological burden of illness hospitalizations

Background

Adhesions are fibrous bands of scar tissue, often result of surgery, that form between internal organs and tissues, joining them together abnormally [1]. Postoperative adhesions frequently occur following abdominal surgery and are a leading cause of intestinal obstruction. It has been estimated that more than 90% of patients who undergo abdominal operations will develop postoperative adhesions [2].

The most severe complication of postoperative adhesions is small bowel obstruction (SBO), which has a 10% risk of mortality [3, 4]. Recent research has demonstrated that readmission episodes averaged 2.7 per patient for SBO or nonspecific abdominal pain (when adhesions were considered likely). Inpatient readmissions accounted for 87% of episodes; 47% of those required repeat surgery [5]. Additionally, in the large retrospective study Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research, surgical procedures performed on the bowel or the female reproductive system were associated with an increased chance of adhesion development, termed adhesiolysis [68]. Ray and colleagues found that 47% of adhesiolysis-related inpatient hospitalizations were for procedures involving the female reproductive tract [2]. Postoperative adhesiolysis-related SBO occurred in 2.8% of patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign conditions and in 5% of those undergoing radical hysterectomy [4, 9].

A number of studies have shown that the economic burden of adhesiolysis is significant [2, 5, 10]. It was estimated that adhesiolysis procedures resulted in 303,836 hospitalizations, 846,415 days of inpatient care, and nearly $1.3 billion in health care expenditures in the United States (US) in 1994 [2]. This cost has decreased when compared with similar data from 1988,[10] due in part to laparoscopic surgery. Despite the decrease in costs associated with laparoscopic surgery, increased use of such techniques did not lead to a decreased rate of overall hospitalizations [2].

Utilizing more recent data, we estimated the current burden of inpatient treatment of adhesiolysis in the US. This study examined the number and rate of adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations, days of care attributable to adhesiolysis, and length of stay (LOS) for adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations, with primary and secondary procedures considered separately. Additionally, we assessed total inpatient costs attributable to adhesiolysis.

Methods

Data Source

Data were taken from the 2005 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS)[11]. The NIS is the largest all-payer inpatient care database in the US and contains data from approximately 8 million hospital stays in 2005. The database also contains clinical and resource use information, including patient demographics, International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes, diagnosis-related group (DRG) codes, LOS, charges, discharge status, payer source, and hospital-specific characteristics. Using the survey design elements provided with the NIS, data can be weighted to produce nationally representative estimates [12]. All financial information in the NIS database is presented as charges rather than costs. To convert hospital charges to costs, facility-specific cost-to-charge ratios were used. Finally, the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index was applied to inflate all financial data to 2007 US dollars [13].

RTI International's Institutional Review Board determined that this study met all criteria for exemption.

Study Sample

From the NIS, all hospitalizations containing a DRG code of peritoneal adhesiolysis with or without complications (i.e., DRG 150, 151) were defined as primary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations. Hospitalizations containing a primary or nonprimary ICD-9-CM procedure code for adhesiolysis, but without DRG 150 or 151, were defined as secondary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations (Table 1). Hospitalizations related to secondary adhesiolysis were stratified by body system, using the following DRG coding:
  1. (1)

    Digestive system (i.e., DRG 148, 149, 154, or 468),

     
  2. (2)

    Hepatobiliary system (i.e., DRG 197, 493, or 494),

     
  3. (3)

    Female reproductive system (i.e., DRG 358, 359, 361, or 365),

     
  4. (4)

    Pregnancy with evidence of Cesarean section (i.e., DRG 370, 371, or 378).

     
Table 1

Description of Procedure (ICD-9-CM) Codes Used to Identify Adhesiolysis-Related Surgical Procedures

ICD-9-CM Procedure Code

Brief Description

Nongynecologic

   54.5

Lysis of peritoneal adhesions

   54.51

Laparoscopic lysis of peritoneal adhesions

   54.59

Other lysis of peritoneal adhesions

   56.81

Lysis of intraluminal adhesions of ureter

   57.12

Lysis of intraluminal adhesions with incision into bladder

   57.41

Transurethral lysis of intraluminal adhesions

   58.5

Release of urethral structure

   59.01

Ureterolysis with freeing or repositioning of ureter for retroperitoneal fibrosis

   59.02

Other lysis of perirenal or periureteral adhesions

   59.03

Laparoscopic lysis of perirenal or periureteral adhesions

   59.11

Other lysis of perivesical adhesions

   59.12

Laparoscopic lysis of perivesical adhesions

   68.21

Division of endometrial synechiae

Gynecologic

   65.8

Lysis of adhesions of ovary and fallopian tube

   65.81

Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions of ovary and fallopian tube

   65.89

Other lysis of adhesions of ovary and fallopian tube

   70.13

Lysis of intraluminal adhesions of vagina

   71.01

Lysis of vulvar adhesions

ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification.

Study Measures

Study measures included the number of inpatient hospitalizations involving adhesiolysis, adhesiolysis-related hospitalization rates, days of care, and costs attributable to adhesiolysis.

Hospitalization rates per 100,000 persons were assessed using the US Census Bureau's 2005 total US civilian population projection. The total days of care attributable to adhesiolysis were estimated using methods presented by Ray and colleagues that then were adapted for the HCUP NIS [2]. When DRG 150 or 151 (i.e., primary adhesiolysis) was the primary reason for admission, the attributed LOS was simply the mean LOS for this group. For records without a DRG of 150 or 151, excess days attributed to adhesiolysis were calculated as the difference between the mean LOS for those same procedures with adhesiolysis and those procedures without adhesiolysis within each DRG. The total number of adhesiolysis-related days then was estimated as the product of the attributed LOS for the group and the number of adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations within the group.

This study utilized the methodology from Ray and colleagues to estimate the per-day cost attributable to adhesiolysis [2]. Cost per day was estimated by dividing the total cost of adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations divided by the total number of adhesiolysis-related inpatient days. The total inpatient expenditures attributable to adhesiolysis were estimated by multiplying the estimated cost per day attributable to adhesiolysis by the number of days attributed to adhesiolysis.

Average expenditures for surgeon's services were estimated using the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS). The RBRVS value was estimated for Current Procedural Terminology codes related to adhesiolysis (Table 2) and then multiplied by a fixed conversion factor to determine the average surgeon expenditures for each specific procedure. These figures then were inflated to 2007 dollars using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index.
Table 2

Description of Procedure (CPT) Codes Used to Identify Adhesiolysis-Related Surgical Procedures to Estimate Expenditures for Surgeons' Servicesa

CPT Code

Brief Description

44005

Enterolysis (freeing of intestinal adhesion)

50715

Ureterolysis, with or without repositioning of ureter for retroperitoneal fibrosis

50722

Ureterolysis for ovarian vein syndrome

50725

Ureterolysis for retrocaval ureter, with reanastomosis of upper urinary tract or vena cava

58660

Laparoscopy, surgical; with lysis of adhesions (salpingolysis, ovariolysis) (separate)

58559

Hysteroscopy with lysis of intrauterine adhesions (any method)

56441

Lysis of labial adhesions

58740

Lysis of adhesions (salpingolysis, ovariolysis)

CPT = Current Procedural Terminology.

a CPT codes 56304 and 58985 were replaced by code 58660, and CPT code 57451 was retired.

Total inpatient costs attributable to adhesiolysis consisted of inpatient costs and costs for the surgeon's services. Estimates were made separately for primary and secondary adhesiolysis. These also were examined by body system and then aggregated to estimate a total cost. Additionally, inpatient expenditures were summarized to compare Cesarean section deliveries with and without adhesiolysis.

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive analyses were conducted to display the mean, standard deviation, median, and range of continuous variables, as well as the frequency distribution of categorical variables. All data management and analyses were conducted with SAS and SUDAAN statistical software packages [14, 15].

Results and Discussion

Table 3 illustrates that there were 351,777 adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations in the US in 2005, representing 119 adhesiolysis hospitalizations per 100,000 persons. There were 898 adhesiolysis hospitalizations per 100,000 hospitalizations and 3,549 per 100,000 surgical hospitalizations of any kind (3.5%). Primary adhesiolysis (i.e., DRG 150 or 151) was found in 23.2% of these hospitalizations, while the remaining 76.8% were classified as secondary adhesiolysis (i.e., evidence of the procedure but with a DRG other than 150 or 151).
Table 3

Rate of Adhesiolysis-Related Hospitalizations

Characteristic

Estimated Hospitalizations

Rate of Hospitalizations per 100,000 in the US Populationa

Rate of Hospitalizations per 100,000 Hospitalized Personsb

Rate of Hospitalizations per 100,000 Hospitalized Persons for Surgical Interventionc

Total number

351,777

118.64

898.22

3,549.04

   Adhesiolysis, primary procedure

81,532

27.50

208.18

822.57

   Adhesiolysis, secondary procedure

270,245

91.14

690.04

2,726.47

US = United States.

a Based upon the US Census Bureau's 2005 population estimate.

b Among all hospitalizations.

c Among all hospitalized surgical patients.

Table 4 presents background characteristics for the study sample. For primary adhesiolysis, the number of hospitalizations increased steadily by age; for secondary adhesiolysis, the number increased for most age categories. The lowest rate was in patients who were younger than 25 years (5.2 per 100,000 persons for primary adhesiolysis; 13.8 per 100,000 persons for secondary adhesiolysis), and the highest rate was in patients who were older than 65 years (88.4 per 100,000 persons for primary adhesiolysis; 176.7 per 100,000 persons for secondary adhesiolysis). Women had a higher hospitalization rate than men (34.9 vs. 19.7 per 100,000 persons for primary adhesiolysis; 153.1 vs. 13.4 per 100,000 persons for secondary adhesiolysis). Among primary adhesiolysis hospitalizations, almost half (48%) of the patients were admitted via the emergency department, whereas only 20.5% of the secondary adhesiolysis hospitalizations were via the emergency department. Primary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations were evenly distributed between private insurance and governmental coverage, i.e., Medicaid and Medicare (44% and 48%, respectively), whereas more than half (56%) of the patients with secondary adhesiolysis hospitalizations had private insurance and 37.4% had government-sponsored health care coverage.
Table 4

Demographics and Other Patient- and Facility-Specific Characteristics of Interest Among Adhesiolysis-Related Hospitalizations (i.e., DRG 150 or 151) in the US in 2005

 

Primary Procedure (N = 81,532)

Secondary Procedure (N = 270,245)

Characteristic

Estimated Hospitalizations

Hospitalizations per 100,000 Population

Rate of Hospitalization (All Hospitalizations)

Rate of Hospitalization (Surgical Hospitalizations)

Estimated Hospitalizations

Hospitalizations per 100,000 Persons

Rate of Hospitalization per 100,000 Hospitalizations

Rate of Hospitalization per 100,000 Hospitalizations With Surgical Procedure

Age (years)

        

   < 25

5,297

5.15

56.19

456.49

14,212

13.82

150.75

1,224.79

   25-34

5,402

13.46

133.39

419.16

46,483

115.79

1,147.76

3,606.77

   35-44

11,106

25.32

308.40

888.83

71,062

162.00

1,973.28

5,687.19

   45-54

15,691

36.93

372.13

1,142.65

52,732

124.11

1,250.61

3,840.06

   55-64

14,324

47.19

322.36

970.96

27,644

91.07

622.13

1,873.86

   65-74

13,615

73.00

276.54

877.54

25,980

139.30

527.70

1,674.52

   ≥ 75

16,034

88.40

189.72

893.19

32,047

176.69

379.20

1,785.20

   Missing

64

---

125.96

352.54

86

---

169.25

473.72

Gender

        

   Female

52,579

34.93

228.80

874.57

230,422

153.07

1002.71

3,832.69

   Male

28,696

19.66

178.76

746.39

39,614

13.36

246.77

1,030.37

   Missing

256

---

195.29

463.40

208

---

158.68

376.51

Race/ethnicity

        

   Caucasian

47,344

19.90

241.10

889.04

134,079

56.36

682.79

2,517.78

   African-American

6,325

16.69

186.29

920.21

31,153

82.19

917.53

4,532.39

   Othera

7,398

35.71

133.96

591.38

37,206

179.59

673.71

2,974.15

   Missing

20,466

---

192.91

772.80

67,808

---

639.14

2,560.44

Admission source

        

   ER

38,748

---

232.79

1,553.63

55,369

---

332.64

2,220.06

   Another facility

2,274

---

119.81

524.63

4,666

---

245.83

1,076.48

   Otherb

40,509

---

196.45

579.99

210,210

---

1,019.41

3,009.70

Discharge status

        

   Routine

63,979

---

220.83

865.62

225,752

---

779.22

3,054.37

   Transfer to short-term hospital

579

---

68.15

882.96

1,324

---

155.85

2,019.06

   Skilled nursing facility

7,252

---

152.54

567.78

16,752

---

352.36

1,311.57

   Died in hospital

1,439

---

175.74

989.64

4,662

---

569.34

3,206.17

   Otherc

8,282

---

219.70

802.10

21,755

---

577.11

2,106.94

Primary source of payment

        

   Medicare

32,085

---

220.41

913.00

63,421

---

435.68

1,804.68

   Medicaid

7,445

---

97.42

560.04

37,547

---

491.32

2,824.44

   Private Insurance

36,057

---

263.49

848.19

150,852

---

1,102.37

3,548.56

   Otherd

5,853

---

181.10

731.63

18,280

---

565.60

2,285.01

   Missing

91

---

186.24

528.76

145

---

296.76

842.53

Hospital region

        

   Northeast

16,376

29.95

211.20

857.55

55,070

100.71

710.24

2,883.80

   Midwest

18,994

28.81

210.56

838.51

57,623

87.39

638.80

2,543.83

   South

31,772

29.54

212.63

849.84

108,511

100.89

726.20

2,902.44

   West

14,389

21.06

193.21

720.01

49,041

71.76

658.51

2,453.96

Hospital location/teaching status

        

   Urban

70,728

---

208.10

787.13

237,845

---

699.81

2,646.96

   Rural

10,804

---

208.70

1,166.35

32,399

---

625.86

3,497.65

Hospital bed sizee

        

   Small

10,532

---

218.05

1,001.92

32,559

---

674.10

3,097.36

   Medium

20,062

---

206.81

861.57

63,964

---

659.39

2,746.96

   Large

50,938

---

206.78

779.80

173,721

---

705.23

2,659.47

Hospital teaching status

        

   Teaching

32,737

---

200.09

698.61

108,747

---

664.68

2,320.66

   Nonteaching

48,795

---

213.99

933.72

161,498

---

708.23

3,090.37

Hospital control

        

   Government or private, collapsed

47,163

---

207.20

775.62

155,489

---

683.12

2,557.11

   Government, nonfederal, public

5,150

---

197.77

978.84

16,048

---

616.29

3,050.19

   Private, nonprofit, voluntary

16,957

---

208.70

832.92

58,180

---

716.06

2,857.76

   Private, investor owned

8,419

---

205.72

867.45

30,627

---

748.36

3,155.64

   Private, collapsed

3,843

---

243.13

1,286.57

9,901

---

626.39

3,314.69

DRG = diagnosis-related group; HCUP = Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project; NHDS = National Hospital Discharge Survey; US = United States.

a Other category includes Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and "other" HCUP category (no further information provided in the data dictionary).

b Other category includes court and law enforcement, and routine, including "other" HCUP category (no further information provided in the data dictionary).

c Other category includes home health, against medical advice, and alive but destination unknown.

d Other category includes self-pay, no charge, and "other" HCUP category (no further information provided in the data dictionary).

e Hospital bed size is based upon facility-specific geographic location and teaching status. These allocations are from the NHDS classification grid.

A total of 967,332 inpatient days of care were attributed to primary and secondary adhesiolysis (Table 5). There were 81,532 hospitalizations and an average LOS of 7.8 days per stay, totaling 632,688 inpatient days of care for primary adhesiolysis. An estimated 334,644 days of care were attributed to secondary adhesiolysis. For hospitalizations in which adhesiolysis was a secondary procedure, we compared the LOS between adhesiolysis and nonadhesiolysis procedures to estimate the LOS attributable to adhesiolysis by each DRG. The majority of DRGs showed an increase in LOS for adhesiolysis hospitalizations versus nonadhesiolysis hospitalizations. On average, hospitalizations related to secondary adhesiolysis resulted in an additional 1.24 hospitalized days compared with nonadhesiolysis-related hospitalizations.
Table 5

Inpatient Care Attributable to Abdominal Adhesiolysis by Surgical Procedure in the US in 2005

Reason for Hospitalization

Mean Length of Stay (Days)

    

(Diagnosis-Related Group)

Adhesiolysis

Nonadhesiolysis

AttributedLOS (Days)

Number of Adhesiolysis-Related Hospitalizations

Attributed Days of Care

Rate of Days Due to Adhesiolysis

Adhesiolysis only (DRG 150, 151)

7.76

---

7.76

81,532

632,688

7.76

Adhesiolysis as a Secondary Procedure

Digestive System

   DRG 148: Major small and large bowel procedures with CC

13.87

10.57

3.30

64,588

213,140

3.30

   DRG 149: Major small and large bowel procedures without CC

6.30

5.20

1.10

9,313

10,244

1.10

   DRG 154: Stomach, esophageal, and duodenal procedures with CC

16.41

11.84

4.57

7,183

32,826

4.57

   DRG 468: Extensive OR procedures unrelated to principal diagnosis

16.12

11.25

4.87

3,491

17,001

4.87

   Digestive System Total

---

---

---

84,575

273,212

3.23

Hepatobiliary System

   DRG 197: Total cholecystectomy without CDE with CC

8.66

8.10

0.56

4,698

2,631

0.56

   DRG 493: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without CDE with CC

5.99

5.21

0.78

9,568

7,463

0.78

   DRG 494: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without CDE without CC

2.70

2.46

0.24

6,811

1,635

0.24

   Hepatobiliary System Total

---

---

---

21,077

11,729

0.56

Female Reproductive System

   DRG 358: Uterine and adnexa procedures for nonmalignancy with CC

3.90

3.00

0.90

38,263

34,437

0.90

   DRG 359: Uterine and adnexa procedures for nonmalignancy without CC

2.46

2.14

0.32

81,543

26,094

0.32

   DRG 361: Laparoscopy and incisional tubal interruption

2.80

2.58

0.22

484

106

0.22

   DRG 365: Other female reproductive system OR procedures

4.81

5.57

-0.76

4,779

-3,632

-0.76

   Female Reproductive System Total

---

---

---

125,069

57,005

0.46

Pregnancy, C-Section

   DRG 370: Cesarean section with CC

4.30

4.45

-0.15

9,901

-1,485

-0.15

   DRG 371: Cesarean section without CC

3.12

3.37

-0.25

26,011

-6,503

-0.25

   DRG 378: Ectopic pregnancy

2.16

1.97

0.19

3,612

686

0.19

   Pregnancy, C-section Total

---

---

---

39,524

-7,302

-0.18

Total, Adhesiolysis as a secondary procedure

---

---

---

270,245

334,644

1.24

Total, all adhesiolysis-related procedures

---

---

---

351,777

967,332

2.75

CC = complications and comorbidities; DRG = diagnosis-related group; LOS = length of stay; US = United States.

The difference in mean LOS was greatest for extensive operation room procedures unrelated to principal diagnosis (i.e., DRG 468), with 4.9 days attributable to adhesiolysis. For stomach, esophageal, and duodenal procedures with complications of comorbid conditions (i.e., DRG 154), 4.6 days were attributable to adhesiolysis. Almost half (46.3%) of all secondary adhesiolysis procedures (125,069) were female reproductive tract related, resulting in 57,005 days of care. Thus, 0.46 day of additional stay were attributable to adhesiolysis. The longest LOS for female reproductive system procedures was for DRG 358 (uterine and adnexa procedures for nonmalignancy), which resulted in an additional day of inpatient stay (0.90 day).

Table 6 shows that total inpatient expenditures for adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations were $2.25 billion: of this amount, primary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations accounted for $1.35 billion and secondary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations accounted for $902 million. Of the total secondary adhesiolysis expenditures, $622 million (69%) were related to procedures for the digestive system and $220 million (24.3%) were related to procedures for the female reproductive system. Adhesiolysis related to the hepatobiliary system and pancreas and Cesarean sections accounted for $41 million and $18 million, respectively.
Table 6

Inpatient Expenditures Attributable to Abdominal Adhesiolysis in the US in 2005

Expenditure

Attributed to Adhesiolysis

Total in Millions (2007 $)

By type of procedure

  

   Adhesiolysis as primary procedure

  

Total days of care

632,688

$1,277

Surgical procedures

81,532

$68

Subtotal

---

$1,345

   Adhesiolysis as secondary procedure

 

Total days of care

334,644

$675

Surgical procedures

270,245

$227

Subtotal

---

$902

Cost stratification of secondary adhesiolysis, by body system

   Digestive system

  

Total days of care

273,212

$551

Surgical procedures

84,575

$71

Subtotal

---

$622

   Hepatobiliary system and pancreas

  

Total days of care

11,729

$24

Surgical procedures

21,077

$18

Subtotal

---

$41

   Female reproductive system

  

Total days of care

57,005

$115

Surgical procedures

125,069

$105

Subtotal

---

$220

   Pregnancy, C-sections

  

Total days of care

-7,302

-$15

Surgical procedures

39,524

$33

Subtotal

---

$18

Total expenditures

---

$2,247

US = United States.

The rate of adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations in the US has remained fairly constant from 1998 to 2005: from 115.5 in 1988 [10] to 117.3 in 1994 [2] and ultimately 118.6 per 100,000 persons in 2005. In these same time periods, the average LOS for primary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations has steadily decreased from 11.2 days to 9.7 days and 7.8 days, respectively. The costs for such hospitalizations, when inflated to reflect 2007 dollars, indicated an increase of $112 million between 1988 and 2005, despite the 3.4-day (or 30%) decrease in LOS--this represented a 5% increase in medical care costs. This increase suggested that costs of treating adhesiolysis have increased substantially.

Primary adhesiolysis contributed 23% of all adhesiolysis procedures (81,532) but represented more than half of the total cost burden ($1.3 billion). Secondary adhesiolysis was substantially higher in volume, representing 77% of procedures (270,245) but less half of the total cost burden ($902 million). The greatest number of procedures was to the female reproductive tract (125,069) while procedures to the digestive tract yielded the highest overall costs ($622 million).

Potentially mitigating this growth in the cost of adhesiolysis may be the continuing trend in the US toward minimally invasive and laparoscopic approaches, which may lessen the occurrence of postoperative adhesions [2]. Although laparoscopy reduces surgical trauma, the procedure has not been show to reduce the incidence of adhesion-related readmissions [16].

This study is subject to potential limitations consistent with retrospective database studies. Conditions and events of interest were identified by diagnosis codes. Previous research has suggested that the condition may be underreported [17]. This may mean that the actual cost of adhesiolysis-related disease is greater than the estimate provided by our study. The database used for this study was not specifically designed to assess inpatient burden. Like all administrative billing databases, the data contained in the HCUP NIS are dependent upon the quality of coding, which may be influenced by reimbursement incentives. However, we do not feel it likely that such incentives greatly affected our results since the majority of overall adhesiolysis costs were a part of secondary adhesiolysis procedures and not the more costly primary adhesiolysis. Moreover, even if such incentives exist and are reflected in the data used for this study, these data are indicative of real world practice. Additionally, with such a large sample, the effect of any coding errors or anomalies would likely be minimized.

Furthermore, due to the nature of the database, detailed clinical characteristics could not be ascertained; therefore, the results could not be adjusted for disease severity or other clinical parameters. However, it is unlikely that these factors would have had a large impact on the results, as this study focused on those patients receiving inpatient care. Additionally, since the database contains US data only, the results may not be generalizable to other populations outside of the US. Lastly, because the focus of this study was on direct cost measures, the results do not account for productivity loss for the patient or caregiver and potential future societal contributions that may be lost due to death resulting from or related to adhesiolysis. Because we examined only the direct health care costs associated with inpatient adhesiolysis, we have not examined any adhesiolysis-related surgeries performed at other sites of care, such as ambulatory surgical centers. Further, our study does not capture direct costs relating to but occurring before or after surgery, including pain medications, cost of work-up visits, and procedures related to diagnosis. Similarly, patient work-ups and diagnostic laparoscopic procedures that may have occurred at separate visits and prior to the adhesiolysis surgery were not captured if specific DRG codes were not listed for those hospitalizations [6, 7, 9]. Hence, this study's estimates of costs are likely to be conservative.

Conclusions

Adhesions remain an important surgical problem, and hospitalization for adhesiolysis leads to a high direct cost burden in the US. Despite a trend of decreasing LOS for adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations from 2001 to 2005, adhesiolysis-related costs continue to rise even while the overall rate of adhesiolysis procedures remains constant. Consistent with previous research, the distribution of inpatient care and costs across the diagnostic categories remained steady from 2001 to 2005, with only a slight increase in primary adhesiolysis procedures over time. From 2001 to 2005, hospitalizations for adhesiolysis related to the digestive system and to the female reproductive tract had the largest number of inpatient days and accounted for the majority of costs related to secondary adhesiolysis procedures.

Adhesiolysis remains a substantial economic burden to the US health care system, which should be of interest to providers and commercial and government payers. Further research incorporating detailed clinical data and indirect costs would aid in a greater understanding of the overall burden of adhesiolysis.

Funding

This study and the preparation of this manuscript were funded by Ethicon, Inc. The authors acknowledge that Ethicon, Inc. is the maker of GYNECARE INTERCEED, a product that is marketed to prevent pelvic adhesions.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Portions of the study data presented in this paper were previously presented as a podium presentation at the VIIIth PAX Meeting; Clermont-Ferrand, France; September 18-20, 2008, as well as a poster presentation at the 57th Annual Clinical Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Chicago, Illinois; May 2-6, 2009.

The authors wish to thank Ms. Gail Zona of RTI Health Solutions and Ms. Heidi Waters of Ethicon, Inc., for assistance with preparing this manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Shire Pharmaceuticals
(2)
RTI Health Solutions
(3)
The Christie NHS Foundation Trust
(4)
Texas Health Care, Fort Worth

References

  1. Beck DE: Understanding abdominal adhesions. Ostomy Q. 2001, 38 (2): 50-51.Google Scholar
  2. Ray NF, Denton WG, Thamer M, Henderson SC, Perry S: Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. J Am Coll Surg. 1998, 186 (1): 1-9. 10.1016/S1072-7515(97)00127-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Menzies D, Parker M, Hoare R, Knight A: Small bowel obstruction due to postoperative adhesions: treatment patterns and associated costs in 110 hospital admissions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001, 83: 40-46.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. diZerega GS, Tulandi T: Prevention of intra-abdominal adhesions in gynaecological surgery. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008, 17: 303-306. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60211-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Tingstedt B, Isaksson J, Andersson R: Long-term follow-up and costs analysis following surgery for small bowel obstruction caused by intra-abdominal adhesions. Br J Surg. 2007, 94: 743-748. 10.1002/bjs.5634.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM: Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 1999, 353: 1476-1480. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09337-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Parker MC, Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O'Briena F, Buchan S, Crowe AM: Postoperative adhesions: ten-year follow-up of 12,584 patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001, 44: 822-829. 10.1007/BF02234701.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Ellis H, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM: The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8489 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000, 107: 855-862. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11083.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Meagher AP, Moller C, Hoffmann DC: Non-operative treatment of small bowel obstruction following appendectomy or operation on the ovary or tube. Br J Surg. 1993, 80: 1310-1311. 10.1002/bjs.1800801030.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ray NF, Larsen JW, Stillman RJ, Jacobs RJ: Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993, 176: 271-276.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). [http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp]
  12. Steiner C, Elixhauser A, Schnaier J: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project: an overview. Eff Clin Pract. 2002, 5 (3): 143-151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for medical services. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu]
  14. SAS Institute Inc: SAS 9.1.3. 2003, Cary, NC: SAS Institute IncGoogle Scholar
  15. Research Triangle Institute: SUDAAN (Release 9.0.1). 2005, Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle InstituteGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, Mehrabi A, Büchler MW: Fewer adhesions induced by laparoscopic surgery?. Surg Endosc. 2004, 18 (6): 898-906. 10.1007/s00464-003-9233-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, Sunderland G, Clark DN, Knight AD, Crowe AM, Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research (SCAR) Group: The SCAR-3 study: 5-year adhesion-related readmission risk following lower abdominal surgical procedures. Colorectal Dis. 2005, 7: 551-558. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2005.00857.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2482/11/13/prepub

Copyright

© Sikirica et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.