Clinical, pathologic, and economic parameters of laparoscopic colon resection for cancer

Bouvet, Michael; Mansfield, Paul F.; Skibber, John M.; Curley, Steven A.; Ellis, Lee M.; Giacco, Geoffrey G.; Madary, Alice; Ota, David M.; Feig, Barry W.

doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(98)00261-x

Cited by 83 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies by Ridgway et al [22] and Bouvet et al [23] performed relevant economic evaluations but did not include the price differences; therefore, they were excluded from the analysis (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has laparoscopic colorectal surgery become more cost-effective over time?

Aly

Quayyum

2012

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has laparoscopic colorectal surgery become more cost-effective over time?

Aly

Quayyum

2012

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some have found that costs were increased by laparoscopic colectomy relative to open colectomy (difference in AUD 1,183 (p = 0.001) [102] , difference in USD 2,000 (p = 0.02) [103] ), three of the studies, which looked at direct costs, gave quite different results. One study [104] found an advantage for laparoscopic surgery of USD 3,655 -3,299 = 356 (p = 0.0034), another [42] found no difference, while a third, the Hong Kong study [32] , found that laparoscopic surgery was USD 2,149 more expensive (p !…”

Section: Costsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Laparoscopic Approach to Colonic Cancer: Critical Appraisal of the Literature

Fingerhut

Ata²,

Chouillard³

et al. 2007

Dig Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: As laparoscopic colectomy finds its place in the surgical armamentarium, the literature concerning the safety, efficacy, and oncological rational for treatment of colonic cancer is also enriched. A review and critical appraisal of the literature on this subject was the aim of this paper. Methods: A systematic research and a hand search were conducted to gain access to all controlled studies involving laparoscopic colectomy using the Medline, Embase, HealthSTAR, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, CancerLit data bases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1991–2006. Results: Over 40 controlled randomized trials and ten systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were found. Several of the completed controlled randomized trials have published either short- or long-term results; only partial and short-term results are available in rectal cancer. The principal conclusions are that the laparoscopic approach affords better short-term outcomes including surgical site morbidity, but with increased operative times and direct costs. Among the proven long-term outcomes, cancer recurrence and survival do not seem to be worse. Whether conversion, a source of increased operative time and costs, is responsible for poorer outcomes or whether specific settings associated with poorer outcomes are among the causes of conversion remains to be shown. However, there are still concerns as regards specific laparoscopic-related complications. Conclusion: There seems to no real safety problems in performing laparoscopic colectomy for cancer; improvement in operative times, conversion rates, and complications should make laparoscopy the best cost-effective approach to colectomy.

show abstract

“…No difference was found in 30-day overall morbidity between COS and POS patients. Previously, two studies found a higher Overall (I−squared = 96.9%, p = 0.000) Rickert et al [34] Kang et al [32] Study Casillas et al [16] Gonzalez et al [18] Bouvet et al [25] Strohlein et al [15] Kaiser et al [26] Martinek et al [28] Slim et al [12] CLASICC trial [3] Begos et al [24] Hewett et al [27] Senagore et al [23] Pennincks et al [31] [3,12], but Slim et al [12] reported data from an early laparoscopic experience. Consistent with this result, there was no difference in the length of postoperative hospital stay.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The full text of the remaining 79 articles was examined in more detail. After excluding 59 studies, 20 studies [11,12,15,16,18,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1 [11,16,22,26,27].…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%