Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36333498›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2023

High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica).

Nereo Vettoretto, Emanuela Foglia, Chiara Gerardi, Emanuele Lettieri, Umberto Nocco, Emanuele Botteri, Umberto Bracale, Valerio Caracino, Francesco Maria Carrano, Elisa Cassinotti and 16 more

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

26 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Nereo VettorettoU.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia P.O. Montichiari, Ospedale di Montichiari, Chirurgia, V.le Ciotti 154, 25018, Montichiari, BS, Italy. nereovet@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7011-2804
Emanuela FogliaCentre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy.
Chiara GerardiMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Emanuele LettieriDipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Umberto NoccoS.C. Ingegneria Clinica, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda and Associazione Italiana Ingegneri Clinici, Milan, Italy.
Emanuele BotteriU.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia P.O. Montichiari, Ospedale di Montichiari, Chirurgia, V.le Ciotti 154, 25018, Montichiari, BS, Italy.
Umberto BracaleU.O.C. Chirurgie Generale e Oncologica Mini Invasiva, A.O.U. Policlinico Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Valerio CaracinoU.O.C. Chirurgia Generale e d'Urgenza, AUSL Pescara, Pescara, Italy.
Francesco Maria CarranoU.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, ASST Valle Olona, Busto Arsizio, Varese, Italy.
Elisa CassinottiChirurgia Generale, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Marco GiovenzanaUnit of HepatoBilioPancreatic and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale San Paolo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Beatrice GiulianiUnit of HepatoBilioPancreatic and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale San Paolo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Angelo IossaDepartment of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, University of Rome Sapienza Polo Pontino, Rome, Italy.
Marco MiloneU.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Federico II di Napoli, Naples, Italy.
Giulia MontoriU.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, Ospedale di Vittorio Veneto, Treviso, Italy.
Roberto PeltriniU.O.C. Chirurgie Generale e Oncologica Mini Invasiva, A.O.U. Policlinico Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Giacomo PiattoUOC Chirurgia Generale e d'Urgenza, Ospedale di Montebelluna (TV), AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso, Italy.
Mauro PoddaDipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Alberto SartoriUOC Chirurgia Generale e d'Urgenza, Ospedale di Montebelluna (TV), AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso, Italy.
Eleonora AllocatiMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Lucrezia FerrarioCentre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy.
Federica AspertiCentre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy.
Letizia SongiaS.C. Ingegneria Clinica, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda and Associazione Italiana Ingegneri Clinici, Milan, Italy.
Silvio GarattiniCentre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy.
Ferdinando AgrestaU.O.C. Chirurgia Generale, Ospedale di Vittorio Veneto, Treviso, Italy.
HTA-HED Collaborative Group
Policlinico Umberto I · ITUniversity Carlo Cattaneo · ITFederico II University Hospital · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia · ITMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research · ITOspedale Civile di Vittorio Veneto · ITUniversity of Milan · ITAzienda USL di Pescara · ITAziende Socio Sanitarie Territoriali di LeccoFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITOspedale di Circolo di Busto Arsizio · ITPolitecnico di Milano · ITUniversity of Cagliari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices.

methodsA Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from - 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures' savings.

resultsThe literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to - 5.25/-9.02% of operating room time and to - 5.03/-30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals' perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers' quality-of-life emerged.

conclusionsThe results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.

Indexed as

HospitalsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansItalyPancreatectomyBipolar deviceEconomic analysisHigh-energy deviceHTAMonopolar deviceMultidimensional evaluation

Identifiers

PMID36333498
PMCPMC9638482
OpenAlexW4308296192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.