ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2014
Comparison of hospital costs for single-port and conventional laparoscopic colorectal resection: a case-matched study.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- Systematic review of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of mini-laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancers: A propensity scoring matching approach.PloS one · 2019Article
- Does stoma site specimen extraction increase postoperative ileostomy complication rates?Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Single center cost analysis of single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgical treatment in colorectal malignant diseases.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017Article
- Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colon and Rectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether single-port laparoscopic (SPL) colorectal resection is cost-effective in comparison to conventional laparoscopy remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare hospital costs for single-port versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections.
methodsPatients with available cost data who underwent (SPL) colorectal resection between December 2007 and December 2010 were matched with conventional (multiport) laparoscopic (CL) counterparts for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, operation type and year of surgery. Patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery were not included in the study. Direct hospital costs for the two groups were compared.
resultsThere were 90 patients in the SPL group and 90 patients in the CL group. Age (p = 0.79), gender (p = 0.88), body mass index (p = 0.82), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 1) and diagnosis (p = 0.85) were similar in both groups. Operation type (p = 1), estimated blood loss (p = 0.17) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.06) were comparable between the groups. Operation time was significantly shorter in the SPL group (p < 0.001), thus anesthesia cost was significantly lower in this group (p = 0.003). Total costs (p = 0.5), operating room (p = 0.65), nursing (p = 0.13), pharmacy (p = 0.6), radiology (p = 0.27), professional (p = 0.38) and pathology/laboratory (p = 0.46) costs were similar between the two groups.
conclusionsSingle-port laparoscopic colorectal resection can be performed with comparable hospital costs to conventional multiport laparoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24737497What 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.