ArticleSurgical endoscopy2010
Comparison of the clinical and economic outcomes between open and minimally invasive appendectomy and colectomy: evidence from a large commercial payer database.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Teaching surgery novices and trainees advanced laparoscopic suturing: a trial and tribulations.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- Barriers to diffusion and implementation of pediatric minimally invasive surgery in Brazil.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Semi-autonomous Robotic Anastomoses of Vaginal Cuffs Using Marker Enhanced 3D Imaging and Path Planning.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2019Article
- Autonomous Laparoscopic Robotic Suturing with a Novel Actuated Suturing Tool and 3D Endoscope.IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation : ICRA : [proceedings]. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation · 2019Article
- Assessing the economic advantage of laparoscopic vs. open approaches for colorectal cancer by a propensity score matching analysis.Surgery today · 2018Article
- Development and Feasibility of a Robotic Laparoscopic Clipping Tool for Wound Closure and Anastomosis.Journal of medical devices · 2018Article
- Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: How to discourage surgeons using inadequate therapy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- National Trends in Postoperative Outcomes and Cost Comparing Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver and Pancreatic Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2016Article
- Surgical site infection after laparoscopic and open appendectomy: a multicenter large consecutive cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015Article
- Laparoscopic appendectomy: quality care and cost-effectiveness for today's economy.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2013Article
- Laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision for right colon cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Article
- [Pediatric appendicitis : Open or laparoscopic appendicectomy in a specialized visceral surgical clinic?].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2011Article
- Overnight hospital stay after colon surgery for adenocarcinoma.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppendectomy and colectomy are commonly performed surgical procedures. Despite evidence demonstrating advantages with the minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach, open procedures occur with greater prevalence. Therefore, there is still controversy as to whether the MIS approach is safer or more cost effective.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed using a large commercial payer database. The data included information on 7,532 appendectomies and 2,745 colectomies. Data on the distribution of patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics associated with the MIS and open approaches were reviewed. The corresponding complication rates and expenditures were analyzed. Summary statistics were compared using chi-square tests, and generalized linear models were constructed to estimate expenditures while controlling for patient characteristics.
resultsThe patients undergoing MIS and open colectomy showed no significant variations in age distribution or marginal age differences for appendectomy. Significantly more patients experienced an infection postoperatively, and procedure-specific complications were more common in the open group for both procedures (P\0.05). The postsurgical hospital stay was longer for the patients treated using the open techniques, differing an average of half a day for appendectomies and significantly more (4 days) for colectomy (P\0.05). Readmission rates differed little between the two approaches. Procedures performed through an MIS approach were associated with lower expenditures than for the open technique, with differences ranging from $700 for appendectomy patients (P\0.05) to $15,200 for colectomy patients (P\0.05).
conclusionsMinimally invasive appendectomy and colectomy were associated with lower infection rates, fewer complications, shorter hospital stays, and lower expenditures than open surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.