Dataset Information

Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Comparative evaluation of costs and effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH).

Data sources

Controlled trials from Cochrane Central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase and prospective trial registers.

Selection of studies

Twelve (randomized) controlled studies including the search terms costs, laparoscopy, laparotomy and hysterectomy were identified.

Methods

The type of cost analysis, perspective of cost analyses and separate cost components were assessed. The direct and indirect costs were extracted from the original studies. For the cost estimation, hospital stay and procedure costs were selected as most important cost drivers. As main outcome the major complication rate was taken.

Findings

Analysis was performed on 2226 patients, of which 1013 (45.5%) in the LH group and 1213 (54.5%) in the AH group. Five studies scored > or =10 points (out of 19) for methodological quality. The reported total direct costs in the LH group ($63,997) were 6.1% higher than the AH group ($60,114). The reported total indirect costs of the LH group ($1,609) were half of the total indirect in the AH group ($3,139). The estimated mean major complication rate in the LH group (14.3%) was lower than in the AH group (15.9%). The estimated total costs in the LH group were $3,884 versus $3,312 in the AH group. The incremental costs for reducing one patient with major complication(s) in the LH group compared to the AH group was $35,750.

Conclusions

The shorter hospital stay in the LH group compensates for the increased procedure costs, with less morbidity. LH points in the direction of cost effectiveness, however further research is warranted with a broader costs perspective including long term effects as societal benefit, quality of life and survival.

SUBMITTER: Bijen CB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2752190 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials.

Bijen Claudia B M CB Vermeulen Karin M KM Mourits Marian J E MJ de Bock Geertruida H GH

PloS one 20091005 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Comparative evaluation of costs and effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH).<h4>Data sources</h4>Controlled trials from Cochrane Central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase and prospective trial registers.<h4>Selection of studies</h4>Twelve (randomized) controlled studies including the search terms costs, laparoscopy, laparotomy and hysterectomy were identified.<h4>Methods</h4>The type of cost analysis, perspective of cost analyses a ...[more]

PMID: 19806210

Similar Datasets

Project description:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease, as determined by randomized studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Controlled-Trials.com from study inception to October 9, 2014, using the intersection of the themes "robotic" and "hysterectomy." We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women for benign disease. Four trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. We extracted data, and assessed the studies for methodological quality in duplicate. For meta-analysis, we used random effects to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences. For our primary outcome, we used a modified version of the Expanded Accordion Severity Grading System to classify perioperative complications. We identified 41 complications among 326 patients. Comparing robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy, revealed no statistically significant differences in the rate of class 1 and 2 complications (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-1.89) or in the rate of class 3 and 4 complications (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.22-4.40). Analyses of secondary outcomes were limited owing to heterogeneity, but showed no significant benefit of the robotic technique over the laparoscopic technique in terms of length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.39 day; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.14 day), total operating time (weighted mean difference, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, -31.27 to 47.26 minutes), conversions to laparotomy, or blood loss. Outcomes of cost, pain, and quality of life were reported inconsistently and were not amenable to pooling. Current evidence demonstrates neither statistically significant nor clinically meaningful differences in surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. The role of robotic surgery in benign gynecology remains unclear.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in the abdominal trial, and laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy in the vaginal trial. DESIGN:Two parallel, multicentre, randomised trials. SETTING:28 UK centres and two South African centres. PARTICIPANTS:1380 women were recruited; 1346 had surgery; 937 were followed up at one year. Primary outcome Rate of major complications. RESULTS:In the abdominal trial laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy (11.1% v 6.2%, P = 0.02; difference 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.9% to 9.1%) and the number needed to treat to harm was 20. Laparoscopic hysterectomy also took longer to perform (84 minutes v 50 minutes) but was less painful (visual analogue scale 3.51 v 3.88, P = 0.01) and resulted in a shorter stay in hospital after the operation (3 days v 4 days). Six weeks after the operation, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with less pain and better quality of life than abdominal hysterectomy (SF-12, body image scale, and sexual activity questionnaires). In the vaginal trial we found no evidence of a difference in major complication rates between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy (9.8% v 9.5%, P = 0.92; difference 0.3%, -5.2% to 5.8%), and the number needed to treat to harm was 333. We found no evidence of other differences between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy except that laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer to perform (72 minutes v 39 minutes) and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology (16.4% v 4.8%, P = < 0.01). However, this trial was underpowered. CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy. It also took longer to perform but was associated with less pain, quicker recovery, and better short term quality of life. The trial comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy was underpowered and is inconclusive on the rate of major complications; however, vaginal hysterectomy took less time.

Project description:This study is to compare the survival outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2 to IIB LACC who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2001 and 2015 were identified. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared according to the surgical approach and were adjusted based on clinicopathologic characteristics. A total of 396 patients were included in the study, with 179 (45.2%) and 217 (54.8%) patients in the ARH and LRH groups, respectively. The LRH group showed a significantly lower amount of estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate and shorter length of hospital stay. Overall, there were no significant differences in the 5-year DFS and 5-year OS between the LRH and ARH groups with the Kaplan-Meier method. However, multivariate analyses identified LRH as an independent prognostic factor for a poor DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02). The analysis of stage IB2 disease and the squamous subtype (61.9% and 87.9% of all participants, respectively) reached the same conclusion. When stratifying by FIGO stage, the patients with IB2 (n = 348) in the ARH group had a significantly better DFS (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.42, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.67, p = 0.11) than those in the LRH group in the Cox regression model. However, no differences were found in patient with stage IIA1, IIA2, or IIB in Cox regression model. When stratifying by histological types, for the patients with squamous carcinomas (n = 375), in Cox model, ARH had a significantly superior DFS compared with those who underwent LRH (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.82, p = 0.01), but the OS was not statistically significant (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27-1.20, p = 0.14). However, no differences were found in patient with adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinomas in the Cox model. Therefore, ARH was associated with a higher DFS than LRH in patients with LACC, especially in patients with stage IB2 disease or the squamous subtype.

Project description:IntroductionIt has been previously demonstrated that the rise of intra-abdominal pressures and prolonged exposure to such pressures can produce changes in the cardiovascular and pulmonary dynamic which, though potentially well tolerated in the majority of healthy patients with adequate cardiopulmonary reserve, may be less well tolerated when cardiopulmonary reserve is poor. Nevertheless, theoretically lowering intra-abdominal pressure could reduce the impact of pneumoperitoneum on the blood circulation of intra-abdominal organs as well as cardiopulmonary function. However, the evidence remains weak, and as such, the debate remains unresolved. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to demonstrate the current knowledge around the effect of pneumoperitoneum at different pressures levels during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Materials and methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.ResultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis included 44 randomized controlled trials that compared different pressures of pneumoperitoneum in the setting of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Length of hospital, conversion rate, and complications rate were not significantly different, whereas statistically significant differences were observed in post-operative pain and analgesic consumption. According to the GRADE criteria, overall quality of evidence was high for intra-operative bile spillage (critical outcome), overall complications (critical outcome), shoulder pain (critical outcome), and overall post-operative pain (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was moderate for conversion to open surgery (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 1 day (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 3 days (important outcome), and bleeding (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was low for operative time (important outcome), length of hospital stay (important outcome), post-operative pain at 12 h (critical outcome), and was very low for post-operative pain at 1 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 4 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 8 h (critical outcome), and post-operative pain at 2 days (critical outcome).ConclusionsThis review allowed us to draw conclusive results from the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with an adequate quality of evidence.

Dataset Information

Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials.

Objective

Data sources

Selection of studies

Methods

Findings

Conclusions

Publications

Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets