Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 413–416 | Cite as

Hospital cost categories of one-stage versus two-stage management of common bile duct stones

  • B. Topal
  • K. Vromman
  • R. Aerts
  • C. Verslype
  • W. Van Steenbergen
  • F. Penninckx



In the era of cost-conscious healthcare, hospitals are focusing on costs. Analysis of hospital costs per cost category may provide indications for potential cost-saving measures in the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) with gallbladder in situ.


Between October 2005 and September 2006, 53 consecutive patients suffering from CBDS underwent either a one-stage procedure [laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with stone clearance and cholecystectomy (LCCE)] or a two-stage procedure [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy and stone clearance (ERCP/ERS) followed by LCCE]. Costs were defined in different cost categories for each activity centre and were linked to the individual patient via the “bill of activities”. Only patients (n = 38) with an uneventful post-procedural course and with available cost data were considered for cost analysis. Total length of hospital stay (LOS) was 2 (0–6) days after one-stage and 8 (3–18) days after two-stage procedure (p < 0.0001).


Costs per patient were significantly (p < 0.0001) less after one-stage versus two-stage management, i.e. total hospital costs (€2,636 versus €4,608), hospitalisation costs (€701 versus €2,190), consumables/pharmacy (€645 versus €1,476) and para-medical personnel (€1,035 versus €1,860; p = 0.0002). Operation room (OR) costs were comparable for one-stage and two-stage management (€1,278 versus €1,232; p = 0.280). Total hospital costs during ERCP were €2,648 (€729–4,544), during LCCE without LCBDE were €2,101 (€1,033–4,269), and during LCCE with LCBDE were €2,636 (€1,176–4,235).


In the management of patients with CBDS and gallbladder in situ a one-stage procedure is associated with significantly less costs as compared with a two-stage procedure. From the economical point of view these patients should preferably be treated via a one-stage procedure as long as safety and efficacy of this approach are provided.


Laparoscopy Cost Bile duct stone Healthcare 


  1. 1.
    Aerts R, Penninckx F (2003) The burden of gallstone disease in Europe. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 18:49–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Topal B, Van de Moortel M, Fieuws S, Vanbeckevoort D, Van Steenbergen W, Aerts R et al (2003) The value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in predicting common bile duct stones in patients with gallstone disease. Br J Surg 90:42–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poulose BK, Arbogast PG, Holzman MD (2006) National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores. Surg Endosc 20:186–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacFadyen BV (2006) Intraoperative cholangiography: past, present, and future. Surg Endosc 20:S436–S440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perry KA, Myers JA, Deziel DJ (2008) Laparoscopic ultrasound as the primary method for bile duct imaging during cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:208–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stiris MG, Tennoe B, Aadland E, Lunde OC (2000) MR cholangiopancreaticography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography in patients with suspected common bile duct stones. Acta Radiol 41:269–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Varghese JC, Liddell RP, Farrell MA, Murray FE, Osborne H, Lee MJ (1999) The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and ultrasound compared with direct cholangiography in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Clin Radiol 54:604–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verma D, Kapadia A, Eisen GM, Adler DG (2006) EUS and MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 64:248–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Topal B, Peeters G, Verbert A, Penninckx F (2007) Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: clinical pathway implementation is efficient, cost-effective and increases hospital bed capacity. Surg Endosc 21:1142–1146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clayton ES, Connor S, Alexakis N, Leandros E (2006) Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ. Br J Surg 93:1185–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin DJ, Vernon DR, Toouli J (2006) Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev, April 19 (2):CD003327Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Topal B, Aerts R, Penninckx F (2007) Laparoscopic common bile duct stone clearance with flexible choledochoscopy. Surg Endosc 21:2317–2321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arregui ME, Davis CJ, Arkush AM, Nagan RF (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone extraction or laparoscopic choledochoscopy and electrohydraulic lithotripsy for management of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc 6:10–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Topal
    • 1
    • 2
  • K. Vromman
    • 3
  • R. Aerts
    • 1
  • C. Verslype
    • 4
  • W. Van Steenbergen
    • 4
  • F. Penninckx
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Abdominal SurgeryUniversity Hospital LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Abdominal SurgeryUniversity Hospital GasthuisbergLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Management Information & ReportingUniversity Hospital LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity Hospital LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations