BACKGROUND: Previous cost analyses of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) reported slightly higher or similar costs to those of open resection. These analyses were based on randomised controlled trials when the laparoscopic approach was newly adopted. This study compared costs for laparoscopic versus open resection in a region of high uptake where adoption is mature. METHODS: Hospital cost data were obtained for elective resections for CRC that occurred between June 2009 and June 2011 in public hospitals in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome was total cost and secondary outcomes were length-of-stay, operating time, and ICU admission. Multivariate least-squares regression was used to adjust for potential confounders: age, sex, comorbidities, procedure, and hospital volume. RESULTS: The crude mean cost for laparoscopic resection was euro 20,036 compared with that for open resection of euro 22,780 (difference = euro 2,744). Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection (744/1,397; 53 %) were slightly younger and had fewer comorbidities (decreasing costs) but more had rectal surgery (increasing costs). The adjusted mean cost for laparoscopic resection was euro 20,396 compared with euro 22,442 for open resection (difference = euro 2,054). Compared with open resection, when adjusted for potential confounders, laparoscopic resection resulted in similar operating time (216 vs. 214 min), shorter length-of-stay (difference = -1.1 days, 95 % CI -1.9, -0.3), and shorter admission to ICU (difference = -7.3 h, 95 % CI -11.9, -2.7). CONCLUSIONS: This non-randomised study in a region of high uptake found a similar operating time and lower cost for laparoscopic resection for CRC compared with those of open resection due to a shorter length-of-stay and shorter time in ICU. Laparoscopic resection for CRC saves money when the procedure is widely adopted and surgeons are experienced in the technique.
BACKGROUND: Previous cost analyses of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) reported slightly higher or similar costs to those of open resection. These analyses were based on randomised controlled trials when the laparoscopic approach was newly adopted. This study compared costs for laparoscopic versus open resection in a region of high uptake where adoption is mature. METHODS: Hospital cost data were obtained for elective resections for CRC that occurred between June 2009 and June 2011 in public hospitals in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome was total cost and secondary outcomes were length-of-stay, operating time, and ICU admission. Multivariate least-squares regression was used to adjust for potential confounders: age, sex, comorbidities, procedure, and hospital volume. RESULTS: The crude mean cost for laparoscopic resection was euro 20,036 compared with that for open resection of euro 22,780 (difference = euro 2,744). Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection (744/1,397; 53 %) were slightly younger and had fewer comorbidities (decreasing costs) but more had rectal surgery (increasing costs). The adjusted mean cost for laparoscopic resection was euro 20,396 compared with euro 22,442 for open resection (difference = euro 2,054). Compared with open resection, when adjusted for potential confounders, laparoscopic resection resulted in similar operating time (216 vs. 214 min), shorter length-of-stay (difference = -1.1 days, 95 % CI -1.9, -0.3), and shorter admission to ICU (difference = -7.3 h, 95 % CI -11.9, -2.7). CONCLUSIONS: This non-randomised study in a region of high uptake found a similar operating time and lower cost for laparoscopic resection for CRC compared with those of open resection due to a shorter length-of-stay and shorter time in ICU. Laparoscopic resection for CRC saves money when the procedure is widely adopted and surgeons are experienced in the technique.