• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

腹腔镜结肠切除术的短期和长期成本明显低于开放性结肠切除术。

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

机构信息

Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2010 Sep;24(9):2128-34. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-0909-1. Epub 2010 Feb 21.

DOI:10.1007/s00464-010-0909-1
PMID:20174941
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The financial impact of laparoscopic colectomy remains poorly defined. We report the short-term costs of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) as compared with open colectomy (OC) in a high-volume tertiary care hospital, and are the first to incorporate the costs of late, colectomy-related complications in an analysis of long-term costs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic (n = 76) or open (n = 162) colon resection between January 2004 and December 2006 was performed. Primary endpoints were total hospital cost of the index admission and total hospital cost for any subsequent admission for treatment of a colectomy-related complication.

RESULTS

Two-hundred thirty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Mean total hospital cost was significantly greater for patients undergoing OC (US $17,686 per patient versus US $14,518, P = 0.0003). Mean total operative costs were equivalent (US $7,451 OC versus US $7,794 LC, P = 0.274). Average length of stay was shorter for LC (5.2 versus 6.9 days, P < 0.0001). Late complication rates were 5.6% (OC) and 2.6% (LC). Integrating the cost of late complications further increased the disparity between the total cost of OC (US $18,296 per patient, 3.4% increase) as compared with LC (US $14,789, 1.9% increase).

CONCLUSION

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

摘要

背景

腹腔镜结肠切除术的经济影响仍未明确界定。我们报告了在一家高容量的三级护理医院中,腹腔镜结肠切除术(LC)与开腹结肠切除术(OC)相比的短期成本,并且首次在长期成本分析中纳入了迟发性、与结肠切除术相关的并发症的成本。

方法

对 2004 年 1 月至 2006 年 12 月期间接受择期腹腔镜(n = 76)或开腹(n = 162)结肠切除术的患者进行了回顾性分析。主要终点是索引入院的总住院费用和任何后续因治疗与结肠切除术相关的并发症而入院的总住院费用。

结果

238 名患者符合纳入标准。OC 组患者的总住院费用明显更高(每位患者 17686 美元,而 LC 组为 14518 美元,P = 0.0003)。平均总手术费用相当(OC 组为 7451 美元,LC 组为 7794 美元,P = 0.274)。LC 组的平均住院时间更短(5.2 天对 6.9 天,P < 0.0001)。迟发性并发症发生率为 5.6%(OC)和 2.6%(LC)。将迟发性并发症的成本纳入后,OC 的总费用(每位患者 18296 美元,增加 3.4%)与 LC(每位患者 14789 美元,增加 1.9%)之间的差距进一步加大。

结论

我们在一家高容量的三级护理医院中证明了 LC 在短期和长期都具有经济优势。

相似文献

1
Short- and long-term costs of laparoscopic colectomy are significantly less than open colectomy.腹腔镜结肠切除术的短期和长期成本明显低于开放性结肠切除术。
Surg Endosc. 2010 Sep;24(9):2128-34. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-0909-1. Epub 2010 Feb 21.
2
A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.开放与腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的临床及经济结局的全国性评估。
Surg Endosc. 2016 Oct;30(10):4220-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4732-6. Epub 2015 Dec 29.
3
Cost comparison between hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy and open colectomy.手辅助腹腔镜结肠切除术与开放结肠切除术的成本比较
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012 Apr;22(3):209-13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2011.0446. Epub 2012 Jan 30.
4
Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: benefits of laparoscopic colectomy at no extra cost.手辅助腹腔镜结肠切除术:无需额外费用即可获得腹腔镜结肠切除术的益处。
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Aug;209(2):242-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.03.024. Epub 2009 May 28.
5
Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on hospital costs for colon cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study.腹腔镜手术与开放手术对结肠癌住院费用的影响:一项基于人群的回顾性队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 3;6(11):e012977. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012977.
6
Cost-efficiency of laparoscopic versus open colon surgery in a tertiary care center.腹腔镜与开腹结直肠手术在三级医疗中心的成本效益比较。
Surg Endosc. 2011 Nov;25(11):3597-604. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1765-3. Epub 2011 Jun 8.
7
Cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open colectomy in patients with colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population database.结肠癌患者腹腔镜与开腹结肠切除术的成本分析:来自全国大型人口数据库的结果
Am Surg. 2012 Jun;78(6):635-41.
8
Laparoscopic colectomy: at what cost?
Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994 Feb;4(1):1-5.
9
Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classifications 3 and 4: the minimally invasive approach is associated with significantly quicker recovery and reduced costs.腹腔镜与开腹结直肠切除术治疗美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级 3 和 4 患者:微创方法与更快的恢复和降低成本相关。
Surg Endosc. 2010 Jun;24(6):1280-6. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0761-3. Epub 2009 Dec 24.
10
Optimizing cost and short-term outcomes for elderly patients in laparoscopic colonic surgery.优化老年患者腹腔镜结肠手术的成本和短期疗效。
Surg Endosc. 2013 Dec;27(12):4463-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3088-z. Epub 2013 Jul 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Orienting global surgery initiatives toward advancing minimally invasive surgery in Africa: a commentary based on continent-wide reviews.将全球外科手术倡议导向推进非洲的微创手术:基于全洲范围综述的评论
BMC Surg. 2025 Apr 2;25(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s12893-025-02863-3.
2
The impact of surgeon choices on costs associated with uncomplicated minimally invasive colectomy: you are not as important as you think.外科医生的选择对单纯性微创结肠切除术相关成本的影响:你并非如你所想的那般重要。
Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2018 May;6(2):108-113. doi: 10.1093/gastro/gox035. Epub 2017 Sep 27.
3
A cost comparison of laparoscopic and open colon surgery in a publicly funded academic institution.

本文引用的文献

1
Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database.利用大型国家数据库研究腹腔镜与开腹结肠切除术的临床结局及资源利用情况。
Ann Surg. 2008 May;247(5):819-24. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31816d950e.
2
Systematic review of the costs of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.腹腔镜结直肠手术成本的系统评价
Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Jun;50(6):908-19. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-0234-5.
3
Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial).
在一家公立学术机构中腹腔镜与开腹结直肠手术的成本比较。
Surg Endosc. 2014 Apr;28(4):1213-22. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3311-y. Epub 2013 Nov 21.
4
Laparoscopic versus an open colectomy in an emergency setting: a case-controlled study.急诊情况下腹腔镜与开放结肠切除术的比较:一项病例对照研究。
Ann Coloproctol. 2013 Feb;29(1):12-6. doi: 10.3393/ac.2013.29.1.12. Epub 2013 Feb 28.
结直肠癌患者传统手术与腹腔镜辅助手术的短期成本(MRC CLASICC试验)
Br J Cancer. 2006 Jul 3;95(1):6-12. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603203. Epub 2006 Jun 6.
4
Economic evaluation of minimally invasive colectomy.微创结肠切除术的经济学评估
J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Feb;202(2):269-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.10.002. Epub 2005 Dec 19.
5
Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme.在强化康复计划中比较腹腔镜手术和开放手术治疗结直肠癌的随机临床试验。
Br J Surg. 2006 Mar;93(3):300-8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5216.
6
Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial.腹腔镜与开放结直肠手术:单中心随机试验中的成本效益分析
Ann Surg. 2005 Dec;242(6):890-5, discussion 895-6. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000189573.23744.59.
7
Comparison of resource utilization and long-term quality-of-life outcomes between laparoscopic and conventional colorectal surgery.腹腔镜与传统结直肠手术资源利用及长期生活质量结果的比较
Surg Endosc. 2004 Nov;18(11):1663-7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-003-9168-8. Epub 2004 Oct 11.
8
Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.结直肠癌患者传统手术与腹腔镜辅助手术的短期终点(MRC CLASICC试验):多中心随机对照试验
Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718-26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66545-2.
9
Is laparoscopic colectomy applicable to patients with body mass index >30? A case-matched comparative study with open colectomy.腹腔镜结肠切除术适用于身体质量指数>30的患者吗?一项与开腹结肠切除术的病例匹配对照研究。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 May;48(5):975-81. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0941-0.
10
Diagnosis-related group assignment in laparoscopic and open colectomy: financial implications for payer and provider.腹腔镜与开放结肠切除术的诊断相关分组:对支付方和医疗服务提供者的财务影响
Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 May;48(5):1016-20. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0907-2.