ArticleHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2011
A comparison of the hospital costs of open vs. minimally invasive surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis.
Article in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- When to Intervene in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review of the Optimal Timing for Intervention Strategies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Endoscopic therapies for walled-off necrosis.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2023Article
- Article
- Minimally invasive procedures in severe acute pancreatitis treatment - assessment of benefits and possibilities of use.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2014Article
- Effects of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2012Article
- Infected pancreatic necrosis: drain first, but do it better.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfected necrotizing pancreatitis is a major burden for both the patient and the health care system. Little is known about how hospital costs break down and how they may have shifted with the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this study was to analyse inpatient hospital costs associated with pancreatic necrosectomy.
methodsA prospective database was used to identify all patients who underwent an intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis. Costs of treatment were calculated using detailed information from the Decision Support Department. Costs for open and minimally invasive surgical modalities were compared.
resultsTwelve open and 13 minimally invasive necrosectomies were performed in a cohort of 577 patients presenting over a 50-month period. One patient in each group died in hospital. Overall median stay was 3.8 days in the intensive care unit (ICU) and 44 days on the ward. The median overall treatment cost was US$ 56,674. The median largest contributors to this total were ward (26.3%), surgical personnel (22.3%) and ICU (17.0%) costs. These did not differ statistically between the two treatment modalities.
conclusionsPancreatic necrosectomy uses considerable health care resources. Minimally invasive techniques have not been shown to reduce costs. Any intervention that can reduce the length of hospital and, in particular, ICU stay by reducing the incidence of organ failure or by preventing secondary infection is likely to be cost-effective.
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.