ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011
Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of common laparoscopic procedures.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic impact of disposable versus reusable instruments in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of economic evaluation of laparotomy versus laparoscopy for patients submitted to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of surgical site infection rates between transumbilical and periumbilical incisions in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials · 2017Trial
- The downtrending cost of robotic bariatric surgery: a cost analysis of 47,788 bariatric patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Training residents in minimally invasive surgery; confirming competence or hoping for the best?Veterinary surgery : VS · 2022Review
- The effect of laparoscopy on intracranial pressure as measured by optic nerve sheath diameter: A review.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2022Review
- Effects of laparoscopic vs open abdominal surgery on costs and hospital readmission rate and its effect modification by surgeons' case volume.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Right lumbar abscess containing a gallstone-an unexpected late complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Journal of surgical case reports · 2020Article
- Identifying Hospital Cost Savings Opportunities by Optimizing Surgical Approach for Distal Pancreatectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Robotic cholecystectomy: first experience with the new Senhance robotic system.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Article
- Laparoscopy in Rwanda: A National Assessment of Utilization, Demands, and Perceived Challenges.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches.Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Article
- OUTCOME OF LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY IN PATIENTS WITH GALLSTONE DISEASE AT A SECONDARY LEVEL CARE HOSPITAL.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Article
- Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons' conversion: a study of trends and costs.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Robotic ventral hernia repair is not superior to laparoscopic: a national database review.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis at Rwanda Military Hospital.World journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Umbilical hernia in patients with liver cirrhosis: A surgical challenge.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016Review
- Microcomplications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: impact on duration of surgery and costs.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic surgery has been shown to offer superior surgical outcomes for most abdominal surgical procedures. However, there is hardly any evidence on surgical outcomes with patient risk stratification. This study aimed to compare outcomes of common laparoscopic and open surgical procedures for varying illness severity.
methodsA retrospective analysis of surgical outcomes for six commonly performed surgical procedures including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, reflux surgery, gastric bypass surgery, ventral hernia repair, and colectomy was performed using the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database/Resource Manager (CDB/RM). The 3-year discharge data for the six commonly performed laparoscopic surgical procedures were analyzed for outcome measures including observed mortality, overall patient morbidity, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, 30-day readmissions, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs.
resultsIn this study, 208,314 patients underwent one of six common surgical procedures by either the open or the laparoscopic approach. Overall, the laparoscopic approach showed significantly lower mortality, reduced morbidity, fewer ICU admissions and 30-day readmissions, shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced hospital costs for all the procedures. At stratification by illness severity, the laparoscopic group showed better or comparable surgical outcomes across all the illness severity groups. However, the observed mortality was comparable for the minor and moderate severity patients between laparoscopic and open surgery for most procedures. The 30-day readmission rate for major/extreme severity patients was comparable between the two groups for most surgical procedures.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated the superiority of laparoscopy over conventional open surgery across all illness severity risk groups for common surgical procedures. The results in general show that laparoscopic surgery is safe, efficacious, and cost-effective compared with open surgery and suggest that laparoscopic surgery should be the procedure of choice for all common surgical procedures, regardless of illness severity.
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.