Short- and long-term costs of laparoscopic colectomy are significantly less than open colectomy

Eisenberg, David P.; Wey, Jane; Bao, Philip; Saul, Melissa; Watson, Andrew; Schraut, Wolfgang H.; Lee, Kenneth K.W.; Moser, A. James; Hughes, Steven J.

doi:10.1007/s00464-010-0909-1

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…reported a significant reduction in complication rates after laparoscopy, several other studies support our finding . Like most other studies, we found that laparoscopic surgery has significantly shorter hospital stay …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Although Lacy et al 16 reported a significant reduction in complication rates after laparoscopy, several other studies support our finding. [17][18][19][20] Like most other studies, we found that laparoscopic surgery has significantly shorter hospital stay. 17,20 Our study also largely antedates the techniques of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…[17][18][19][20] Like most other studies, we found that laparoscopic surgery has significantly shorter hospital stay. 17,20 Our study also largely antedates the techniques of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The advantage of these techniques is that an en bloc removal of large polyps is possible, and residual polyp rates I 3 2 5 II 5 3 III 5 0 IV 3 0 V 0 0 Chi-square 0.211. are low.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scope or scalpel? A matched study of the treatment of large colorectal polyps

Church

Erkan

2016

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scope or scalpel? A matched study of the treatment of large colorectal polyps

Church

Erkan

2016

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We attribute this to the select group of patients whose conditions in an emergent setting often required additional investigations and medications, closer monitoring in specialized wards, and longer hospital stays compared to patients who underwent elective colectomies. We believe that the short- and the long-term financial benefits that were seen in elective laparoscopic colectomies should also be seen in the emergency setting [15]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic Versus an Open Colectomy in an Emergency Setting: A Case-Controlled Study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeLaparoscopy continues to be increasingly adopted for elective colorectal resections. However, its role in an emergency setting remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomies performed for emergency colorectal conditions.MethodsA retrospective review of all patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic colectomies for various surgical conditions was performed. These patients were matched for age, gender, surgical diagnosis and type of surgery with patients who underwent emergency open colectomies.ResultsTwenty-three emergency laparoscopic colectomies were performed from April 2006 to October 2011 for patients with lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding (6), colonic obstruction (4) and colonic perforation (13). The hand-assisted laparoscopic technique was utilized in 15 cases (65.2%). There were 4 (17.4%) conversions to the open technique. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (175 minutes vs. 145 minutes, P = 0.04), and the duration of hospitalization was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 days vs. 7 days, P = 0.15). The overall postoperative morbidity rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.93), with only 3 patients in each group requiring postoperative surgical intensive-care-unit stays or reoperations. There were no mortalities. The cost analysis did not demonstrate any significant differences in the procedural (P = 0.57) and the nonprocedural costs (P = 0.48) between the two groups.ConclusionEmergency laparoscopic colectomy in a carefully-selected patient group is safe. Although the operative times were longer, the postoperative outcomes were comparable to those of the open technique. The laparoscopic group did not incur a higher cost.

show abstract

“…[20][21][22][23][24] This is also reinforced by the successful implementation of laparoscopy into surgical training programs such as FLS (Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Copyright © 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.…”

Section: Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery: Where Shouldmentioning

confidence: 96%

Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery

Berney¹

2011

Annals of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short- and long-term costs of laparoscopic colectomy are significantly less than open colectomy

Abstract: We demonstrate both short- and long-term financial benefits of LC in a high-volume tertiary care hospital.

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

Scope or scalpel? A matched study of the treatment of large colorectal polyps

Scope or scalpel? A matched study of the treatment of large colorectal polyps

Laparoscopic Versus an Open Colectomy in an Emergency Setting: A Case-Controlled Study

Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About