Maud Charvin1, Hans Martin Späth2, Alain Bernard3, Anne-Claire Bertaux1. 1. Department of Health Economy, CHU Dijon, Dijon, France. 2. EA 4129 P2S Parcours Santé Systémique, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, University Lyon 1, Lyon, France. 3. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, CHU Dijon, Dijon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two surgical strategies called video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery (VATS) and thoracotomy are used for lobectomy following lung cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the total cost of each technique (thoracotomy and VATS) during hospitalization in France. METHODS: A micro-costing methodology from the hospital perspective was implemented to assess the hospitalization costs, using direct observations, interviews, and data collection based on medical records in four hospitals. The average real cost of each technique was compared. RESULTS: From the hospital perspective, VATS was more expensive than thoracotomy but the difference was not significant (€6,941.30 vs. €5,950.11). CONCLUSIONS: According to this micro-costing study, thoracotomy seems to be the less expensive technique for the hospital. Our data will be included in a cost-utility analysis to assess the medico-economic impact of the VATS strategy.
BACKGROUND: Two surgical strategies called video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery (VATS) and thoracotomy are used for lobectomy following lung cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the total cost of each technique (thoracotomy and VATS) during hospitalization in France. METHODS: A micro-costing methodology from the hospital perspective was implemented to assess the hospitalization costs, using direct observations, interviews, and data collection based on medical records in four hospitals. The average real cost of each technique was compared. RESULTS: From the hospital perspective, VATS was more expensive than thoracotomy but the difference was not significant (€6,941.30 vs. €5,950.11). CONCLUSIONS: According to this micro-costing study, thoracotomy seems to be the less expensive technique for the hospital. Our data will be included in a cost-utility analysis to assess the medico-economic impact of the VATS strategy.
Authors: Muhannad R M Salih; Mohd Baidi Bahari; Asrul Akmal Shafie; Mohamed Azmi Ahmad Hassali; Omer Qutaiba B Al-lela; Arwa Y Abd; Vigneswari M Ganesan Journal: Seizure Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 3.184
Authors: Laura Haas; Tom Stargardt; Jonas Schreyoegg; Rico Schlösser; Gerhard Danzer; Burghard F Klapp Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Robert C Lee; Denise Zou; Douglas J Demetrick; Lisa M Difrancesco; Konrad Fassbender; Douglas Stewart Journal: Value Health Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Siok Swan Tan; Erik van Putten; Wideke M Nijdam; Patrick Hanssens; Guus N Beute; Peter J Nowak; Clemens M Dirven; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2010-06-06 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Stephen G Henry; Reid M Ness; Renée A Stiles; Ayumi K Shintani; Robert S Dittus Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-07-31 Impact factor: 5.128