Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16327499›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgery2005

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial.

Marco Braga, Andrea Vignali, Walter Zuliani, Matteo Frasson, Clelia Di Serio, Valerio Di Carlo

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 174 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Has laparoscopic colorectal surgery become more cost-effective over time?International journal of colorectal disease · 2012
    Pooled it
  13. Is gum chewing useful for ileus after elective colorectal surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2009
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. [Ultrasonic scissors. New vs resterilized instruments].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2008
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marco BragaDepartment of Surgery, San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy. braga.marco@hsr.it
Andrea Vignali
Walter Zuliani
Matteo Frasson
Clelia Di Serio
Valerio Di Carlo
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITSan Raffaele University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summary background dataStudies comparing the costs of colorectal resection by laparoscopic (LPS) and open approaches are small sized or not randomized. The main purpose of this study is to compare the hospital costs of LPS and open colorectal surgery in a large series of randomized patients.

methodsA total of 517 patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to LPS (n = 258) or open (n = 259) resection. The following costs were calculated: surgical instruments, operative room (OR) occupation, routine care, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Follow-up for postoperative morbidity was carried out for 30 days after hospital discharge.

resultsOperative time was 37 minutes longer in the LPS group. Overall morbidity rate was 18.2% (47 of 258) in the LPS versus 34.7% (90 of 259) in the open group (P = 0.0005). The mean LOS was 9.9 (2.6) days in the LPS group and 12.4 (3.9) days in the open group (P < 0.0001). The additional OR charge in the LPS group was 1171 per patient randomized (864 due to surgical instruments and 307 due to longer time). The saving in the LPS group was 1046 per patient randomized (401 due to shorter LOS and 645 due to the lower cost of postoperative complications). The net balance resulted in 125 extra cost per patient allocated to the LPS group.

conclusionsThe present cost-benefit analysis showed a slight additional cost in the LPS group. The better postoperative short-term outcome in patients receiving LPS had a key role to nearly balance the operative room charges due to laparoscopy.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedChi-Square DistributionColorectal SurgeryFemaleHospital CostsHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedStatistics, NonparametricTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID16327499
PMCPMC1409893
OpenAlexW2026738747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.