ArticleSurgery today2018
Assessing the economic advantage of laparoscopic vs. open approaches for colorectal cancer by a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Surgery today, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Laparoscopic surgery reduced frequency of postoperative small bowel obstruction, and hospital stay compared with open surgery in a cohort of patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Association of hospital factors and socioeconomic status with the utilization of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer over a decade.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Robotic-assisted repair of complex ventral hernia: can it pay off?Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: Economic and clinical outcomes in the Brazilian healthcare.Medicine · 2020Article
- 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
- Clinical Impact of Operative Order in Laparoscopic Simultaneous Resection for Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesThis study investigated the surgical outcomes and potential economic advantage of open vs. laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer using a propensity score matching analysis.
methodsWe examined the surgical and economic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic (N = 127) and open surgery (N = 253) for colorectal cancer and then compared these outcomes in two groups (N = 103 each) using a propensity score matching analysis.
resultsCompared to open surgery, the laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly lower overall morbidity rate (14 vs. 40%; P < 0.001) and shorter mean (± standard deviation) postoperative hospital stay (12.6 ± 8.3 vs. 16.8 ± 9.9 days, respectively; P = 0.001). Despite generating higher mean surgical costs (Japanese yen) (985,000 ± 215,000 vs. 812,000 ± 222,000 yen; P < 0.001), utilizing a laparoscopic approach significantly reduced the non-surgical costs (773,000 ± 440,000 vs. 1075,000 ± 508,000 yen; P < 0.001). The mean total cost of laparoscopic-assisted surgery (1758,000 ± 576,000 yen) was decreased by approximately 130,000 yen compared with open surgery (1886,000 ± 619,000 yen), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.125).
conclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is advantageous in reducing morbidity and facilitating an early discharge and does not increase hospital costs. These findings are consistent with the general consensus supporting the benefits of laparoscopic surgery as a minimally invasive approach.
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.