Literature DB >> 23736351

Cost-effectiveness of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized study.

Karel W J Klop1, Niels F M Kok, Leonienke F C Dols, Frank C d'Ancona, Eddy M M Adang, Janneke P C Grutters, Jan N M IJzermans.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Live kidney donation has a clear economical benefit over dialysis and deceased-donor transplantation. Compared with mini-incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is considered cost-effective. However, little is known on the cost-effectiveness of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HARP versus LDN.
METHODS: Alongside a randomized controlled trial, the cost-effectiveness of HARP versus LDN was assessed. Eighty-six donors were included in the LDN group and 82 in the HARP group. All in-hospital costs were recorded. During follow-up, return-to-work and other societal costs were documented up to 1 year. The EuroQol-5D questionnaire was administered up to 1 year postoperatively to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
RESULTS: Mean total costs from a healthcare perspective were $8935 for HARP and $8650 for LDN (P = 0.25). Mean total costs from a societal perspective were $16,357 for HARP and $16,286 for LDN (P = 0.79). On average, donors completely resumed their daytime jobs on day 54 in the HARP group and on day 52 in the LDN group (P = 0.65). LDN resulted in a gain of 0.005 QALYs.
CONCLUSIONS: Absolute costs of both procedures are very low and the differences in costs and QALYs between LDN and HARP are very small. Other arguments, such as donor safety and pain, should determine the choice between HARP and LDN.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23736351     DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318296ca25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transplantation        ISSN: 0041-1337            Impact factor:   4.939


  5 in total

1.  Surgical team composition has a major impact on effectiveness and costs in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Michiel C Warlé; Michel F van der Jagt; Janneke P C Grutters; Sharon B C E van Horne; Heinrich J Kloke; Johannes A van der Vliet; Johan F Langenhuijsen; Frank C d'Ancona
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Retroperitoneoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and the First Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Paschalis Gavriilidis; Vassilios Papalois
Journal:  J Clin Med Res       Date:  2020-11-03

3.  Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy: a prospective study.

Authors:  JiaQing Gong; YongKuan Cao; YunMing Li; GuoHu Zhang; PeiHong Wang; GuoDe Luo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Robotic Versus Open Renal Transplantation in Obese Patients: Protocol for a Cost-Benefit Markov Model Analysis.

Authors:  Michele Molinari; Chethan Puttarajappa; Martin Wijkstrom; Armando Ganoza; Roberto Lopez; Amit Tevar
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2018-03-08

Review 5.  Laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy: The clinical efficacy and acceptance of the techniques.

Authors:  Abdulrahman Al-Aown; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Stavros Kontogiannis; Iason Kyriayis; Vasilis Panagopoulos; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2014-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.