AIM: Cost has been perceived to be a factor limiting the development of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. This study aimed to compare the costs of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. METHOD: Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open elective colorectal surgery were recruited into a prospective study to evaluate the healthcare costs of each operative procedure in a district general hospital in England. All healthcare resources used (operation, hospital and community) were recorded and converted to costs in British pounds, 2006-2007. Costs of laparoscopic and open surgery were compared. RESULTS: In all, 201 consecutive patients consented and were recruited (131 laparoscopic, 70 open). Operative costs were greater in the laparoscopic group (£2049 vs£1263, P < 0.001) due to the costs of disposable instruments, but the hospital costs were less (£1807 vs£3468, P < 0.001) due to longer lengths of stay in the open group. Community costs were similar in the two groups and had little impact on the overall costs, which were not significantly different (£3875 laparoscopic vs£4383 open, P = 0.308). In the subgroup of patients with a stoma, overall costs in the laparoscopic group are higher (not significant). CONCLUSION: The costs of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery are broadly equivalent. If there is an associated improvement in patient benefit, then laparoscopic colorectal surgery may be considered to be cost effective compared with open surgery.
AIM: Cost has been perceived to be a factor limiting the development of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. This study aimed to compare the costs of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. METHOD:Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open elective colorectal surgery were recruited into a prospective study to evaluate the healthcare costs of each operative procedure in a district general hospital in England. All healthcare resources used (operation, hospital and community) were recorded and converted to costs in British pounds, 2006-2007. Costs of laparoscopic and open surgery were compared. RESULTS: In all, 201 consecutive patients consented and were recruited (131 laparoscopic, 70 open). Operative costs were greater in the laparoscopic group (£2049 vs£1263, P < 0.001) due to the costs of disposable instruments, but the hospital costs were less (£1807 vs£3468, P < 0.001) due to longer lengths of stay in the open group. Community costs were similar in the two groups and had little impact on the overall costs, which were not significantly different (£3875 laparoscopic vs£4383 open, P = 0.308). In the subgroup of patients with a stoma, overall costs in the laparoscopic group are higher (not significant). CONCLUSION: The costs of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery are broadly equivalent. If there is an associated improvement in patient benefit, then laparoscopic colorectal surgery may be considered to be cost effective compared with open surgery.