ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
Real-world cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy versus open colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Africa: an outcome comparison endorsed by the Nigerian society for colorectal disorders.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of Surgical Skin Antisepsis on Surgical Site Infections in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA surgery · 2020Trial
- Orienting global surgery initiatives toward advancing minimally invasive surgery in Africa: a commentary based on continent-wide reviews.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness and readmission rates of laparoscopic vs. open surgery for colorectal cancer: evidence from the health insurance review and assessment service dataset in South Korea.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Net benefit separation and the determination curve: A probabilistic framework for cost-effectiveness estimation.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021Article
- Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Association of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy on the long-term health-related quality of life of colon cancer survivors.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Effects of laparoscopic vs open abdominal surgery on costs and hospital readmission rate and its effect modification by surgeons' case volume.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Observational
- Assessing the economic advantage of laparoscopic vs. open approaches for colorectal cancer by a propensity score matching analysis.Surgery today · 2018Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes following laparoscopicWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic colectomy is increasingly being adopted for the treatment of colon cancer; however, the long-term effectiveness of this approach in a real-world clinical setting has yet to be verified. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and costs associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy from the perspective of the National Health Insurance (NHI) system in Taiwan.
methodsA nationwide population-based colon cancer cohort was observed by linking the Taiwan Cancer Registry, claims data from NHI system, and the National Death Registry. Adult patients with Stage I to Stage III colon cancer who underwent primary cancer resection using either laparoscopy or open colectomy between 2009 and 2011 were included. A propensity score-matched cohort (1745 pairs) was applied to examine three clinical endpoints: overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival within 2 years after the operation. To comply with the perspective as well as the analytic horizon of the study, we limited the research to NHI claims from the study population for the corresponding time period. The health outcomes and net monetary benefits were verified by multivariate mixed-effect models.
resultsThis analysis revealed that laparoscopy resulted in longer overall survival (adjusted difference 16.8 days, 95 % CI 7.3-26.2), recurrence-free survival (16.8 days, 5.0-28.6) and disease-free survival (26.4 days, 7.4-45.4), compared to open colectomy at 2 years post-op. Laparoscopy also led to a significantly shorter length of stay (3.2 days, 2.4-3.9) and lower index hospitalization costs (US$ 455, 181-729) than open colectomy; however, no differences in costs were observed over the long term. Overall, laparoscopy was more cost-effective than open colectomy under various willingness-to-pay thresholds in the setting of the Taiwan NHI.
conclusionsThe continued adoption of laparoscopy in primary curable colon cancer resection is expected to reduce health care costs over the short term while providing considerable health benefits over the long term.
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.