Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28693476›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2017

Intended cost reduction in laparoscopic appendectomy by introducing the endoloop: a single center experience.

Matthias Mehdorn, Olaf Schürmann, H Maximilian Mehdorn, Ines Gockel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix resection: insights from the ESTES SnapAppy study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Article
  5. Laparoscopic appendectomy, stump closure and endoloops: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthias MehdornDepartment of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. matthias.mehdorn@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0047-368X
Olaf SchürmannDepartment of Operative Medicine, commercial managements, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
H Maximilian MehdornMehdorn Consilium, Prüner Gang 7, 24103, Kiel, Germany.
Ines GockelDepartment of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
University Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCost reduction measures in medicine are gaining greater importance nowadays, especially in high-volume procedures such as laparoscopic appendectomy (LAE). Currently there are two common methods of dissecting the appendix from the caecal pole: linear stapler and endoloops. The endoloop is the cheaper device but can only be used in uncomplicated cases of appendicitis. Therefore both methods are used in LAE depending on intraoperative findings. The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate possible cost reduction due to increased use of endoloop in LAE in our general surgery department of a tertiary referral university hospital.

methodsWe previously used the stapler for appendix dissection in LAE as our local protocol but introduced the endoloop as standard method in 2015 to reduce intraoperative costs. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LAE between June 2014 and October 2015 in our department. Our purpose is to show the effects on cost reduction during the introductory period adjusting for a potential bias due to the individual learning curve of every surgeon. We estimated costs for LAE by taking into account average device costs and duration of operation (DO) as well as patient outcome.

resultsA total of 177 patients underwent LAE, 73 in 2014 (phase I) and 104 in 2015 (phase II). The median DO was 61 (± 24 SD) min during the entire period, and increased by 14 min from phase I to II (from 51 (±23 SD) min to 65 (±24 SD) min respectively, p < 0.001). The use of endoloops increased from 10% to 55% (p < 0.001). Patients' characteristics and outcomes did not differ significantly. A median saving of 5.9€ per operation was calculated in phase II compared to phase I (p = 0.80).

conclusionIntroducing the endoloop as standard device for LAE leads to a marginal reduction in intraoperative costs without increasing negative outcomes. In our model the cost-reduction achieved by cheaper devices was overcome by increased costs for DO during the initial phase of use of endoloops. A longer follow up might show a more pronounced cost reduction.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAppendectomyAppendicitisCecumChildCosts and Cost AnalysisDissectionFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurgeonsTertiary Care CentersCost-reductionEndoloopLaparoscopic appendectomyStapling device

Identifiers

PMID28693476
PMCPMC5504743
OpenAlexW2734397885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.