INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of a laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) compared with an open (OLLS) procedure and its role as a training operation as well as the learning curve associated with a laparoscopic approach. METHOD: Between 2004 and 2013, a prospectively maintained database was reviewed. LLLS were compared with age- and sex-matched OLLS. In addition, the outcomes of LLLS with a consultant as the primary surgeon were compared with those performed by trainees. RESULTS: Forty-three LLLS were performed during the study period. LLLS was a significantly cheaper operation compared with OLLS (P = 0.001, £3594.14 versus £5593.41). The median hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.002, 3 versus 7 days). No difference was found in outcomes between a LLLS performed by a trainee or consultant (operating time, morbidity or R1 resection rate). The procedure length was significantly shorter during the later half of the study period [120 versus 129 min (P = 0.045)]. CONCLUSION: LLLS is a significantly cost effective operation compared with an open approach with a reduction in hospital stay. In addition, it is suitable to use as a training operation.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of a laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) compared with an open (OLLS) procedure and its role as a training operation as well as the learning curve associated with a laparoscopic approach. METHOD: Between 2004 and 2013, a prospectively maintained database was reviewed. LLLS were compared with age- and sex-matched OLLS. In addition, the outcomes of LLLS with a consultant as the primary surgeon were compared with those performed by trainees. RESULTS: Forty-three LLLS were performed during the study period. LLLS was a significantly cheaper operation compared with OLLS (P = 0.001, £3594.14 versus £5593.41). The median hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.002, 3 versus 7 days). No difference was found in outcomes between a LLLS performed by a trainee or consultant (operating time, morbidity or R1 resection rate). The procedure length was significantly shorter during the later half of the study period [120 versus 129 min (P = 0.045)]. CONCLUSION: LLLS is a significantly cost effective operation compared with an open approach with a reduction in hospital stay. In addition, it is suitable to use as a training operation.
Authors: Francesco M Polignano; Aaron J Quyn; Rodrigo S M de Figueiredo; Nikola A Henderson; Christoph Kulli; Iain S Tait Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Lana P Sturm; John A Windsor; Peter H Cosman; Patrick Cregan; Peter J Hewett; Guy J Maddern Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kevin Tri Nguyen; Alexis Laurent; Ibrahim Dagher; David A Geller; Jennifer Steel; Mark T Thomas; Michael Marvin; Kadiyala V Ravindra; Alejandro Mejia; Panagiotis Lainas; Dominique Franco; Daniel Cherqui; Joseph F Buell; T Clark Gamblin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Tsafrir Vanounou; Jennifer L Steel; Kevin Tri Nguyen; Allan Tsung; J Wallis Marsh; David A Geller; T Clark Gamblin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christian R Larsen; Jette L Soerensen; Teodor P Grantcharov; Torur Dalsgaard; Lars Schouenborg; Christian Ottosen; Torben V Schroeder; Bent S Ottesen Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-05-14