Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27815745›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits.

Deborah S Keller, Anthony J Senagore, Kathryn Fitch, Andrew Bochner, Eric M Haas

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07264764 (Evaluation of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter, Cerebral Oxygen Saturation and Cognitive Functions in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgeries; Prospective Observational Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07264764 completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter, Cerebral Oxygen Saturation and Cognitive Functions in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgeries; Prospective Observational Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorDuzce UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled50ConditionsPostoperative Cognitive DysfunctionArmsOptic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah S KellerDepartment of Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, 3500 Gaston Street, R-1013, Dallas, TX, 75246, USA. debby_keller@hotmail.com.
Anthony J SenagoreDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA.
Kathryn FitchMilliman, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew BochnerMilliman, New York, NY, USA.
Eric M HaasMinimally Invasive Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Texas Medical Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Milliman (United States) · USBaylor University Medical Center · USTexas Medical Center · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are proven, but overall financial benefits are not fully explored. Our goal was to evaluate the financial benefits of MIS from the payer's perspective to demonstrate the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

methodsA Truven MarketScan

resultsA total of 4615 colectomies were included-2054 (44.5 %) open and 2561 (55.5 %) MIS. Total allowed episode costs were significantly lower MIS than open ($37,540 vs. $45,284, p < 0.001). During the inpatient stay, open cases had significantly greater ICU utilization (3.9 % open vs. 2.0 % MIS, p < 0.001), higher overall complications (52.8 % open vs. 32.3 % MIS, p < 0.001), higher colorectal-specific complications (32.5 % open vs. 17.9 % MIS, p < 0.001), longer LOS (6.39 open vs. 4.44 days MIS, p < 0.001), and higher index admission costs ($39,585 open vs. $33,183 MIS, p < 0.001). Post-discharge, open cases had significantly higher readmission rates/100 cases (11.54 vs. 8.28; p = 0.0013), higher average readmission costs ($3055 vs. $2,514; p = 0.1858), and greater 30-day healthcare costs than MIS ($5699 vs. $4357; p = 0.0033). The net episode cost of care was $7744/patient greater for an open colectomy, even with similar DRG distribution.

conclusionsIn a commercially insured population, the risk-adjusted allowed costs for MIS colectomy episodes were significantly lower than open. The overall cost difference between MIS and open was almost $8000 per patient. This highlights an opportunity for health plans and employers to realize financial benefits by shifting from open to MIS for colectomy. With increasing bundled payment arrangements and accountable care sharing programs, the cost impact of shifting from open to MIS introduces an opportunity for cost savings.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultColectomyDiagnosis-Related GroupsFemaleHealth Care CostsHospitalizationHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPatient ReadmissionPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRisk AdjustmentCost shiftingFinancial benefitsHealthcare outcomesMinimally invasive colorectal surgeryOpen colorectal surgery

Identifiers

PMID27815745
OpenAlexW2548859460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.