-
Comparative Study
A prospective case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcomes of open versus laparoscopic colorectal resection.
- S E Noblett and A F Horgan.
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
- Surg Endosc. 2007 Mar 1;21(3):404-8.
BackgroundWe aimed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs associated with laparoscopic resection within an elective colorectal practice.MethodOver a 12-month period data were prospectively collected on patients undergoing elective colorectal resection under the care of a single consultant surgeon. Thirty patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection were case-matched by type of resection, disease process, and, where appropriate, cancer stage to patients having open surgery. A cost analysis was carried out incorporating cost of surgical bed stay, theater time, and specific equipment costs.ResultsIn the 30 patients having laparoscopic resection, a conversion rate of 13% was observed. Surgery was performed for colorectal cancer in 83% of patients, and 53% of resections were rectal. No significant differences were found in age (65 versus 69 years, p = 0.415), BMI (27.4 versus 26.1, p = 0.527), POSSUM physiology score (16 versus 16.5, p = 0.102), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (2 versus 2, p = 0.171), or length of theater time (160 min versus 160 min, p = 0.233) between the laparoscopic and open patients. Hospital stay was reduced in the laparoscopic group (5 versus 9 days, p < 0.001). Average cost of surgical equipment used for a laparoscopic resection was greater than for open surgery (912.39 versus 276.41 pounds, p = 0.001). Cost of hospital stay was significantly less (1259.75 versus 2267.55 pounds, p < 0.001). Cost of operating room time was similar for the two groups (2066.63 versus 1945.07 pounds, p = 0.152). Overall no significant cost difference could be found between open and laparoscopic resection (4560.9 versus 4348.45 pounds, p = 0.976). More postoperative complications were seen in the open resection group (14 versus 4, p < 0.001).ConclusionsIntraoperative equipment costs are greater for laparoscopic resection than for open surgery. However, benefits can be seen in terms of quicker recovery and shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery is a financially viable alternative to open resection in selected patients.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.