Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Lee, Lawrence; Sudarshan, Monisha; Li, Chao; Latimer, Éric; Fried, Gerald M.; Mulder, David S.; Feldman, Liane S.; Ferri, Lorenzo

doi:10.1245/s10434-013-3103-6

Cited by 45 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as discussed above, MIE is associated with less morbidity, fewer respiratory complications, reduced hospital stay and better health‐related quality of life than OE . To date, only one study evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of MIE compared with OE . The study found that MIE was less costly and more effective than OE; MIE was estimated to cost $1641 less than OE with an incremental gain in quality‐adjusted life‐years of 0.022.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MIE consumes longer operation time because of the technical complexity. Further studies are necessary to determine the clinical impacts of longer surgical time . Towards this end, two randomized controlled studies that are currently being performed are assessing the efficacy, risk, life quality and cost‐effectiveness of OE and MIE in resectable oesophageal cancer patients .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Xiong

Lei

et al. 2015

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Xiong

Lei

et al. 2015

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is little data on economic outcomes of MIE and hybrid procedures compared to traditional approaches. The scant published data suggest MIE may result in decreased or similar costs [12]. A 2009 European study of MIE and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy reported similar costs and safety, but this report was not adjusted for cost confounders in their analysis [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications, Not Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique, Are Associated with Increased Cost after Esophagectomy

Ginsberg

et al. 2016

Minimally Invasive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques offer similar oncological and surgical outcomes to open methods. The effects of MIE on hospital costs are not well documented. Methods. We reviewed the electronic records of patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single academic institution between January 2012 and December 2014. Esophagectomy techniques were grouped into open, hybrid, MIE, and transhiatal (THE) esophagectomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the impact of surgery on total hospital cost after esophagectomy. Results. 80 patients were identified: 11 THE, 11 open, 41 hybrid, and 17 MIE. Median total cost of the hospitalization was $31,375 and was similar between surgical technique groups. MIE was associated with higher intraoperative costs, but not total hospital cost. Multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of a complication, increased age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV (ASA4), and preoperative coronary artery disease (CAD) were associated with significantly increased cost. Conclusions. Despite the association of MIE with higher operation costs, the total hospital cost was not different between surgical technique groups. Postoperative complications and severe preoperative comorbidities are significant drivers of hospital cost associated with esophagectomy. Surgeons should choose technique based on clinical factors, rather than cost implications.

show abstract

“…Finally, one of the advantages of MIE is better cost-effectiveness. Lee et al [27] reported that MIE is cost-effective compared to open esophagectomy in the management of patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Due to its less invasiveness and safety, percent of MIE done for esophageal carcinoma is on rise in all world leading centers dealing with this pathology.…”

Section: Open Versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy a Current Dilemmamentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer -Short Up-to-Date

Bjelović¹,

Neagoe²

2014

Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgery remains the main treatment for localized resectable esophageal cancer. Open esophagectomy is still the standard surgical approach for esophageal cancer but it has a lower patient satisfaction when compared with other treatment options. In the era of "key-hole" surgeries, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) stands as a solution to improve the results after standard open esophagectomies. The aim of the present paper is to provide a short update regarding the minimally invasive esophagectomy, with special emphasis on its indications, results and current controversies.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Abstract: MIE is cost-effective compared to open esophagectomy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

Cited by 45 publications

References 37 publications

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Complications, Not Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique, Are Associated with Increased Cost after Esophagectomy

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer -Short Up-to-Date

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About