Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28133495›Full record

ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2016

Cost minimization analysis of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol: a single-centre, case-matched study.

Michał Pędziwiatr, Mateusz Wierdak, Michał Nowakowski, Magdalena Pisarska, Maciej Stanek, Michał Kisielewski, Maciej Matłok, Piotr Major, Stanisław Kłęk, Andrzej Budzyński

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Challenges associated with bariatric surgery - a multi-center report.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2019
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Patients' opinions on enhanced recovery after surgery perioperative care principles: a questionnaire study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2019
    Article
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

10 authors.

Michał Pędziwiatr2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Mateusz Wierdak2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Michał NowakowskiDepartment of Medical Education, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Magdalena Pisarska2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Maciej Stanek2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Michał Kisielewski2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Maciej Matłok2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Piotr Major2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Stanisław KłękStanley Dudrick Memorial Hospital, Skawina, Poland.
Andrzej Budzyński2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe goal of modern medical treatment is to provide high quality medical care in a cost-effective environment.

aimTo assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery combined with the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol (ERP) in Poland. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe designed a single-centre, case-matched study. Economic and clinical data were collected in 3 groups of patients (33 patients in each group): group 1 - patients undergoing laparoscopy with ERP; group 2 - laparoscopy without ERP; group 3 - open resection without ERP. An independent administrative officer, not involved in the treatment process, matched patients for age, sex and type of resection. Primary outcome was cost analysis. It was carried out incorporating institutional costs: hospital bed stay, anaesthesia, surgical procedure and equipment, drugs and complications. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), readmission and complication rate.

resultsCost of laparoscopic procedure alone was significantly more expensive than open resection. However, implementation of the ERAS protocol reduced additional costs. Total cost per patient in group 1 was significantly lower than in groups 2 and 3 (EUR 1826 vs. EUR 2355.3 vs. EUR 2459.5, p < 0.0001). Median LOS was 3, 6 and 9 days in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were noted in 5 (15.2%), 6 (18.2%) and 13 (39.4%) patients in groups 1, 2, 3 respectively (p = 0.0435).

conclusionsIn a low medical care expenditure country, minimally invasive surgery combined with ERP can be a safe and a cost-effective alternative to open surgery with traditional perioperative care.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerenhanced recoveryfast-tracklaparoscopyperioperative managementpostoperative complications

Identifiers

PMID28133495
PMCPMC4840186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.