Literature DB >> 8873518

A cost-minimization analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy.

U Berggren1, N Zethraeus, D Arvidsson, U Haglund, B Jonsson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Earlier economic analyses have evaluated charges but not costs, and have not considered the cost of production losses associated with open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study attempted to accomplish an economic evaluation of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from the point of view of society.
METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis, using a clinical decision model, was performed. The data used were taken from different clinical studies, Swedish national registers, local patient statistics, and hospital accounting systems. The direct and indirect costs were measured.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in cost savings per patient amounting to about 2,400 SEK (as of 31 August 1994, Pound = 11.90 SEK; $1 = 7.76 SEK) compared with open surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: From the point of view of society, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was a cost-saving strategy if at least 68 patients were operated on yearly. However, with regard to hospital costs, open cholecystectomy was less expensive than laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8873518     DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00197-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  8 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized comparison with conventional herniorrhaphy. Coala trial group.

Authors:  M S Liem; J A Halsema; Y van der Graaf; A J Schrijvers; T J van Vroonhoven
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Effect of robotic assistance on the "learning curve" for laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  S Horgan; C Galvani; M V Gorodner; G R Jacobsen; F Moser; A Manzelli; J Oberholzer; M P Fisichella; D Bogetti; G Testa; H N Sankary; E Benedetti
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-02-08       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The Surgical Recovery Index.

Authors:  M A Talamini; C L Stanfield; D C Chang; A W Wu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-03-19       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Problems and pitfalls in modern competency-based laparoscopic training.

Authors:  M P Schijven; W A Bemelman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Contributing factors to postoperative length of stay in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Srinivas J Ivatury; Christopher L Louden; Wayne H Schwesinger
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2011 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

6.  Is it worth offering a routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy in developing countries? A Thailand case study.

Authors:  Yot Teerawattananon; Miranda Mugford
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2005-10-31

7.  Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy, safety and economy of ERCP and LTCBDE in the treatment of common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Renjie Zhang; Jialin Liu; Huizhen Li; Qingteng Zeng; Shenfeng Wu; Hengyu Tian
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 4.755

8.  Current trends in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  A A Al-Mulhim
Journal:  J Family Community Med       Date:  1997-07
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.