ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic and open surgery in routine Swedish care for colorectal cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer in older patients and its effects on inflammatory factors.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation and analysis of neurocognitive dysfunction in patients with colorectal cancer after radical resection: A retrospective study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and spiral computed tomography in the staging and treatment prognosis of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Long-Term Results After Laparoscopic Lavage for Perforated Diverticulitis Purulent Peritonitis in Sweden: A Population-Based Observational Study.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- First experience in laparoscopic surgery in low and middle income countries: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Regional variations and deprivation are linked to poorer access to laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery: a national study in England.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes and cost comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients over 80 years.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- 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
- Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic left colectomy for radical treatment of colon cancer: a retrospective analysis in a consecutive series of 211 patients.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- National differences in implementation of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer and the influence on short-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Change point analysis validation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Experience from a non-structured training setting.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy and postoperative inflammatory response between laparoscopic and open radical resection of colorectal cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- [Impact of the Nursing Personnel Strengthening Act on minimally invasive surgery exemplified by right-sided hemicolectomy from an economic perspective].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022Article
- Article
- Laparoscopic Radical Resection of Colorectal Cancer in the Treatment of Elderly Colorectal Cancer and Its Effect on Gastrointestinal Function.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Inequalities in access to minimally invasive general surgery: a comprehensive nationwide analysis across 20 years.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Comparison of outcomes and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic and open appendectomies in public health services.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2021Observational
- The COVID-19 health crisis: The surgeon role.Cirugia espanolaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been shown in clinical trials to be effective regarding short-term outcomes and oncologically safe. Health economic analyses have been performed early in the learning curve when adoption of laparoscopic surgery was not extensive. This cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery in Swedish routine care.
methodsIn this national retrospective cohort study, data were retrieved from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry. Clinical effectiveness, resource use and unit costs were derived from this and other sources with nationwide coverage. The study period was 2013 and 2014 with 1 year follow-up. Exclusion criterion comprised cT4-tumors. Clinical effectiveness was estimated in a composite endpoint of all-cause resource-consuming events in inpatient care, readmissions and deaths up to 90 days postoperatively. Up to 1 year, events predefined as related to the primary surgery were included. Costs included resource-consuming events, readmissions and sick leave and were estimated for both the society and healthcare. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups.
resultsAfter exclusion of cT4 tumors, the cohort included 7707 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery: 6060 patients in the open surgery group and 1647 patients in the laparoscopic group. The mean adjusted difference in clinical effectiveness between laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery was 0.23 events (95% CI 0.12 to 0.33). Mean adjusted differences in costs (open minus laparoscopic surgery) were $4504 (95% CI 2257 to 6799) and $4480 (95% CI 2739 to 6203) for the societal and the healthcare perspective respectively. In both categories, resource consuming events in inpatient care were the main driver of the results.
conclusionIn a national cohort, laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery was associated with both superior outcomes for clinical effectiveness and cost versus open surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31630289What 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.