ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of palliative treatment for periampullary cancer: a comparison of surgical and endoscopic approaches.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic biliary stenting is the standard palliative approach for biliary obstruction in unresectable periampullary cancer (PAC). However, stent dysfunction and complications can impact treatment outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of surgical (laparotomy) versus endoscopic approaches on the cost-effectiveness of palliative treatment for biliary obstruction in PAC using real-world data.
methodsData from consecutive patients with malignant obstructive jaundice undergoing either endoscopic biliary stenting (plastic and/or metal stents) or surgical biliary-digestive bypass via laparotomy with palliative intent from January 2002 to December 2013 at a tertiary public teaching hospital were retrospectively collected. Epidemiological and clinical variables, complications, survival, and total treatment costs and costs per procedure were analyzed.
resultsOf 150 patients included, 58 (38.66%) underwent endoscopic treatment (ET group) and 92 (61.33%) underwent laparotomy treatment (LT group). The groups were homogenous regarding preoperative anesthetic risk. Early complications were similar in both groups (55.17% for ET and 40.10% for LT), but late complications were more frequent in the ET group (20.68% vs. 10.34%, p < 0.05), mainly associated with persistent cholestasis, recurrent cholangitis, and difficulty with chemotherapy. The ET group also had significantly worse survival curves. While there was no significant difference in the mean cost per procedure between the ET (US$1217) and LT (US$1458) groups (p > 0.05), the mean total cost of treatment was significantly lower in the ET group (US$3653 vs. US$5451, p < 0.05).
conclusionEndoscopic treatment was associated with a higher occurrence of adverse events and, consequently, worse survival curves, despite a lower mean total cost. Despite this, combining the advantages of both modalities may guide the planning of future cost-effectiveness studies comparing minimally invasive approaches (surgical and endoscopic), particularly in patients with a better prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41184671What 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.