ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2016
A cost-minimization analysis of first intention laparoscopic compared to open right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe morbidity, mortality and survival following a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer are equivalent to an open operation. However, the cost of a longer operating time and consumables may offset savings from a shorter length of stay (LOS). A cost minimization study was undertaken to compare the relative costs.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of consecutive elective right hemicolectomies for colon cancer performed over 5 years by two teams. One team performed an open operation (OG), the other intended to perform all operations laparoscopically (LG). Clinical outcomes and relative costs were evaluated. Results expressed as mean ± SEM.
resultsThere were 58 patients in the open group and 56 in the first intention laparoscopic group, of which 77% were completed laparoscopically. There was no difference in age, gender or cancer stage. The complications, mortality and 5-year survival were similar. Anaesthetic (LG = 63 ± 3, OG = 62 ± 2 min) and surgical times (LG = 144 ± 8, OG = 143 ± 5 min) were similar. Consumables cost €571 more and the total theatre cost was €643 ± 256 higher in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (p = 0.01). The LOS in the laparoscopic group (4.6 ± 0.5 days) was less than in the open group (8.3 ± 1 days, p < 0.01) saving €1960 ± 636 per patient. Overall, first intention laparoscopic right hemicolectomies saved €1316 ± 733 per patient. A probability sensitivity analysis indicated a 62% probability that a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy was cheaper than an open operation.
conclusionLaparoscopic right hemicolectomy is oncologically equivalent but less costly and should be considered the procedure of choice for right-sided colon cancer unless contraindicated.
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.