OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to clarify whether a laparoscopic (LPS) approach could be considered the dominant strategy in patients undergoing right colectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Because few nonrandomized or small sized studies have been carried out so far, definitive conclusions about the role of LPS right colectomy cannot be drawn. METHODS:Two hundred twenty-six patients, candidates for right colectomy, were randomly assigned to LPS (n = 113) or open (n = 113) resection. The postoperative care protocol was the same for both groups. Trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative morbidity. Follow-up was carried out for 30 days after hospital discharge. The following costs were calculated: surgical instruments, operative room occupation, routine care, postoperative morbidity, and hospitalization. RESULTS:Conversion rate in the LPS group was 2.6% (3 of 113). Operative time (in minutes) was longer in the LPS group (131 vs. 112, P = 0.01). Postoperative morbidity rate was 18.6% in the open group and 13.3% in the LPS group (P = 0.31). Postoperative stay was one day longer in the open group (P = 0.002). No difference was found in postoperative quality of life. The additional operative charge in the LPS group was euro980 per patient randomized (euro821 for surgical instruments and euro159 for longer operative time). The savings in the LPS group was euro390 per patient randomized (euro144 for shorter length of hospital stay and euro246 for the lower cost of postoperative morbidity). The net balance resulted in a euro590 extra charge per patient randomly allocated to the LPS group. CONCLUSION:LPS slightly improved postoperative recovery. This translated into a savings that covered only 40% of the extra operative charge. Therefore, open right colectomy could be still considered an effective procedure.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to clarify whether a laparoscopic (LPS) approach could be considered the dominant strategy in patients undergoing right colectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Because few nonrandomized or small sized studies have been carried out so far, definitive conclusions about the role of LPS right colectomy cannot be drawn. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-six patients, candidates for right colectomy, were randomly assigned to LPS (n = 113) or open (n = 113) resection. The postoperative care protocol was the same for both groups. Trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative morbidity. Follow-up was carried out for 30 days after hospital discharge. The following costs were calculated: surgical instruments, operative room occupation, routine care, postoperative morbidity, and hospitalization. RESULTS: Conversion rate in the LPS group was 2.6% (3 of 113). Operative time (in minutes) was longer in the LPS group (131 vs. 112, P = 0.01). Postoperative morbidity rate was 18.6% in the open group and 13.3% in the LPS group (P = 0.31). Postoperative stay was one day longer in the open group (P = 0.002). No difference was found in postoperative quality of life. The additional operative charge in the LPS group was euro980 per patient randomized (euro821 for surgical instruments and euro159 for longer operative time). The savings in the LPS group was euro390 per patient randomized (euro144 for shorter length of hospital stay and euro246 for the lower cost of postoperative morbidity). The net balance resulted in a euro590 extra charge per patient randomly allocated to the LPS group. CONCLUSION: LPS slightly improved postoperative recovery. This translated into a savings that covered only 40% of the extra operative charge. Therefore, open right colectomy could be still considered an effective procedure.
Authors: Matteo Frasson; Pablo Granero-Castro; José Luis Ramos Rodríguez; Blas Flor-Lorente; Mariela Braithwaite; Eva Martí Martínez; Jose Antonio Álvarez Pérez; Antonio Codina Cazador; Alejandro Espí; Eduardo Garcia-Granero Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Andrea Vignali; Paola De Nardi; Luca Ghirardelli; Saverio Di Palo; Carlo Staudacher Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Nikiforos Ballian; Natalie Weisensel; Victoria Rajamanickam; Eugene F Foley; Charles P Heise; Bruce A Harms; Gregory D Kennedy Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jeroen L A van Vugt; Kostan W Reisinger; Joep P M Derikx; Djamila Boerma; Jan H M B Stoot Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-09-21 Impact factor: 5.742