BACKGROUND: Data regarding the quality of life in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and no studies have reported a real cost-effectiveness analysis of this surgical procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with respect to an open distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: Forty-one patients who underwent a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 40 patients who underwent an open distal pancreatectomy were retrospectively studied as regards postoperative results, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Italian neutral version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C-30, version 3.0, was used to rate the quality of life. RESULTS: Postoperative results were similar in the two groups; the only difference was that the first oral intake took place significantly earlier in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (P < 0.001). Regarding quality of life, the laparoscopic approach was able to ameliorate physical functioning (P = 0.049), role functioning (P = 0.044) and cognitive functioning (P = 0.030) and reduce the sleep disturbance scale (P = 0.050). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the acceptability curve for a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than an open distal pancreatectomy when a willingness to pay above 5400 Euros/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was accepted. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of the study, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can be considered not only safe and feasible but also permits a better quality of life and is acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness to Italian and European health care services.
BACKGROUND: Data regarding the quality of life in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and no studies have reported a real cost-effectiveness analysis of this surgical procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with respect to an open distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: Forty-one patients who underwent a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 40 patients who underwent an open distal pancreatectomy were retrospectively studied as regards postoperative results, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Italian neutral version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C-30, version 3.0, was used to rate the quality of life. RESULTS: Postoperative results were similar in the two groups; the only difference was that the first oral intake took place significantly earlier in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (P < 0.001). Regarding quality of life, the laparoscopic approach was able to ameliorate physical functioning (P = 0.049), role functioning (P = 0.044) and cognitive functioning (P = 0.030) and reduce the sleep disturbance scale (P = 0.050). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the acceptability curve for a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than an open distal pancreatectomy when a willingness to pay above 5400 Euros/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was accepted. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of the study, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can be considered not only safe and feasible but also permits a better quality of life and is acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness to Italian and European health care services.
Authors: Mohammad Abu Hilal; Mohammed Hamdan; Francesco Di Fabio; Neil W Pearce; Colin D Johnson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Adrian M Fox; Kristen Pitzul; Faizal Bhojani; Max Kaplan; Carol-Anne Moulton; Alice C Wei; Ian McGilvray; Sean Cleary; Allan Okrainec Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Raghunandan Venkat; Barish H Edil; Richard D Schulick; Anne O Lidor; Martin A Makary; Christopher L Wolfgang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Markus K Diener; Christoph M Seiler; Inga Rossion; Jörg Kleeff; Matthias Glanemann; Giovanni Butturini; Ales Tomazic; Christiane J Bruns; Olivier R C Busch; Stefan Farkas; Orlin Belyaev; John P Neoptolemos; Christopher Halloran; Tobias Keck; Marco Niedergethmann; Klaus Gellert; Helmut Witzigmann; Otto Kollmar; Peter Langer; Ulrich Steger; Jens Neudecker; Frederik Berrevoet; Silke Ganzera; Markus M Heiss; Steffen P Luntz; Thomas Bruckner; Meinhard Kieser; Markus W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Sjors Klompmaker; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Michael L Kendrick; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Emanuel Eguia; Paul C Kuo; Patrick Sweigert; Marc Nelson; Gerard V Aranha; Gerard Abood; Constantine V Godellas; Marshall S Baker Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Bjørn Edwin; Mushegh A Sahakyan; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink; Marco Braga; Jean-Michel Fabre; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Brice Gayet; Song Cheol Kim; Igor E Khatkov Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; Deniece Riviere; C J H van Laarhoven; Marc Besselink; Mohammed Abu-Hilal; Brian R Davidson; Steve Morris Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Małczak; Piotr Major; Jan Witowski; Beata Kuśnierz-Cabala; Piotr Ceranowicz; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Fatma Ümit Malya; Hüseyin Kazım Bektaşoğlu; Mustafa Hasbahçeci; Yunus Taşçı; Enver Kunduz; Oğuzhan Karatepe; Kemal Dolay Journal: Turk J Surg Date: 2017-12-01