ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2014
Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer and polyps: a cost-effectiveness study.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging for Colorectal Surgery: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2025Pooled it
- Current status of robotic surgery in colorectal residency training programs.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic and open surgery in routine Swedish care for colorectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- A National study on the adoption of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the elderly population: current state and value proposition.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of mini-laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancers: A propensity scoring matching approach.PloS one · 2019Article
- The impact of surgeon choices on costs associated with uncomplicated minimally invasive colectomy: you are not as important as you think.Gastroenterology report · 2018Article
- The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Observational
- A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Systematic review of health state utility values for economic evaluation of colorectal cancer.Health economics review · 2016Review
- A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Nationwide variation in outcomes and cost of laparoscopic procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Cost implications and oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery for right hemicolectomy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2016Article
- A cost-minimization analysis of first intention laparoscopic compared to open right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAvailable evidence that compares outcomes from laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer shows no difference in disease free or survival time, or in health-related quality of life outcomes, but does not capture the short term benefits of laparoscopic methods in the early postoperative period.
aimTo explore the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, compared to open methods, using quality of life data gathered in the first 6 weeks after surgery.
methodsParticipants were recruited in 2006-2007 in a district general hospital in the south of England; those with a diagnosis of cancer or polyps were included in the analysis. Quality of life data were collected using EQ-5D, on alternate days after surgery for 4 weeks. Costs per patient, from a National Health Service perspective (in British pounds, 2006) comprised the sum of operative, hospital, and community costs. Missing data were filled using multiple imputation methods. The difference in mean quality adjusted life years and costs between surgery groups were estimated simultaneously using a multivariate regression model applied to 20 imputed datasets. The probability that laparoscopic surgery is cost-effective compared to open surgery for a given societal willingness-to-pay threshold is illustrated using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.
resultsThe sample comprised 68 laparoscopic and 27 open surgery patients. At 28 days, the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained from laparoscopic surgery was £12,375. At a societal willingness-to-pay of £30,000, the probability that laparoscopic surgery is cost-effective, exceeds 65% (at £20,000 ≈60%). In sensitivity analyses, laparoscopic surgery remained cost-effective compared to open surgery, provided it results in a saving ≥£699 in hospital bed days and takes no more than 8 minutes longer to perform.
conclusionThe study provides formal evidence of the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic approaches and supports current guidelines that promote use of laparoscopy where suitably trained surgeons are available.
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.