Literature DB >> 21984223

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a multilevel approach with propensity score matching.

Laura Haas1, Tom Stargardt, Jonas Schreyoegg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative complications and cost of treatment of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) and to identify the most cost-effective treatment method.
METHODS: Patients treated for appendectomy in US veterans health administration (VHA) hospitals in 2005 were included into our study. Direct medical cost and postoperative complications during hospitalization were used as outcomes. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline imbalances between treatment groups. It was adjusted for the severity of appendicitis, comorbidities according to Charlson Comorbidity Index, and demographic variables. 1:1 optimal matching with replacement was performed. Based on the matched samples, we estimated generalized linear mixed regression models for costs (gamma model) and postoperative complications (logit model). Besides patients' covariates, predictors of hospital resource use and quality of care at the hospital level were considered as explanatory variables.
RESULTS: The total study population comprised of 1,128 patients (370 LA, 758 OA) from 95 VHA hospitals. Type of appendectomy had a significant influence on total costs (P=0.005), with predicted costs for LA being 17.1% lower in comparison to OA (OA: 10,851 US$ [95%CI: 9,707 US$; 12,131 US$] vs. LA: 8,995 US$ [95%CI: 8,073 US$; 10,022 US$]). Differences in the predicted overall postoperative complication were not significant between LA and OA (P=0.6311). Severity of appendicitis had a significant impact on costs and postoperative complications.
CONCLUSION: Predicted costs for LA were 1,856 US$ lower than for OA while the postoperative complication rate did not differ significantly. Thus, LA is the treatment of choice from a provider's perspective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21984223     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0355-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  58 in total

1.  Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores.

Authors:  S T Normand; M B Landrum; E Guadagnoli; J Z Ayanian; T J Ryan; P D Cleary; B J McNeil
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Laparoscopic appendectomy for simple and perforated appendicitis in children: the procedure of choice?

Authors:  T G Canty; D Collins; B Losasso; F Lynch; C Brown
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 2.545

3.  Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of common laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Manish M Tiwari; Jason F Reynoso; Robin High; Albert W Tsang; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Performance-based budgeting in the public sector: an illustration from the VA health care system.

Authors:  Suthathip Yaisawarng; James F Burgess
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Recent experience with laparoscopic appendectomy in a Canadian teaching centre.

Authors:  Abdullah Ali; Michael A J Moser
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a metaanalysis.

Authors:  Bo Wei; Cui-Lling Qi; Tu-Feng Chen; Zong-Heng Zheng; Jiang-Long Huang; Bao-Guang Hu; Hong-Bo Wei
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: Clinical and economic analyses.

Authors:  K H Long; M P Bannon; S P Zietlow; E R Helgeson; W S Harmsen; C D Smith; D M Ilstrup; Y Baerga-Varela; M G Sarr
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database.

Authors:  Ulrich Guller; Sheleika Hervey; Harriett Purves; Lawrence H Muhlbaier; Eric D Peterson; Steve Eubanks; Ricardo Pietrobon
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: which way to go?

Authors:  Ioannis Kehagias; Stavros Nikolaos Karamanakos; Spyros Panagiotopoulos; Konstantinos Panagopoulos; Fotis Kalfarentzos
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

View more
  5 in total

1.  Incentive-Based Primary Care: Cost and Utilization Analysis.

Authors:  Marcus J Hollander; Helena Kadlec
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2015-08-05

2.  Evaluating the efficacy of the current diagnosis-related group reimbursement system for laparoscopic appendectomy at a single institute in Korea.

Authors:  Ri Na Yoo; Chul-Woon Chung; Jong-Woo Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 1.859

Review 3.  Acute appendicitis: what is the gold standard of treatment?

Authors:  Cesare Ruffolo; Alain Fiorot; Giulia Pagura; Michele Antoniutti; Marco Massani; Ezio Caratozzolo; Luca Bonariol; Francesco Calia di Pinto; Nicolò Bassi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Authors' reply.

Authors:  Giuseppe Piccinni; Andrea Sciusco; Angela Gurrado; Germana Lissidini; Mario Testini
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.407

5.  Laparoscopic appendectomy: quality care and cost-effectiveness for today's economy.

Authors:  David Costa-Navarro; Montiel Jiménez-Fuertes; Azahara Illán-Riquelme
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 5.469

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.