Fajardo Roosevelt, Valenzuela José Ignacio, Olaya Sandra Catalina, Quintero Gustavo, Carrasquilla Gabriel, Pinzón Carlos Eduardo, López Catalina, Ramírez Juan Camilo
Centro de Innovación y Educación en Salud, Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, DC, Colombia.
Biomedica. 2011 Oct-Dec;31(4):514-24. doi: 10.1590/S0120-41572011000400006.
Cholecystectomy has been the subject of several clinical and cost comparison studies.
The results of open or laparoscopy cholecystectomy were compared in terms of cost and effectiveness from the perspective of health care institutions and from that of the patients.
The cost-effectiveness study was undertaken at two university hospitals in Bogotá, Colombia. The approach was to select the type of cholecystectomy retrospectively and then assess the result prospectively. The cost analysis used the combined approach of micro-costs and daily average cost. Patient resource consumption was gathered from the time of surgery room entry to time of discharge. A sample of 376 patients with cholelithiasis/cystitis (May 2005-June 2006) was selected--156 underwent open cholecystectomy and 220 underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The following data were tabulated: (1) frequency of complications and mortality, post-surgical hospital stay, (2) reincorporation to daily activities, (3) surgery duration, (4) direct medical costs, (5) costs to the patient, and (6) mean and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
Frequency of complications was 13.5% for open cholecystectomy and 6.4% for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p=0.02); hospital stay was longer in open cholecystectomy than in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p=0.003) as well as the reincorporation to daily activities reported by the patients (p<0.001). The duration of open cholecystectomy was 22 min longer than laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p<0.001). The average cost of laparoscopic cholecystectomy was lower than open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy was more cost-effective than open cholecystectomy (US$ 995 vs. US$ 1,048, respectively). The patient out-of-pocket expenses were greater in open cholecystectomy compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p=0.015). Mortality was zero.
The open laparoscopy procedure was associated with longer hospital stays, where as the cholecystectomy procedure required a longer surgical duration. The direct cost of the latter was lower for both for the health care institution and patients. The cost-effectiveness for both procedures was comparable.
胆囊切除术一直是多项临床和成本比较研究的主题。
从医疗机构和患者的角度,对开放式或腹腔镜胆囊切除术的成本和效果进行比较。
在哥伦比亚波哥大的两家大学医院进行成本效益研究。方法是回顾性选择胆囊切除术的类型,然后前瞻性评估结果。成本分析采用微观成本和日均成本相结合的方法。收集患者从进入手术室到出院的资源消耗情况。选取了376例胆石症/胆囊炎患者样本(2005年5月至2006年6月)——156例行开放式胆囊切除术,220例行腹腔镜胆囊切除术。列出以下数据:(1)并发症和死亡率、术后住院时间,(2)恢复日常活动情况,(3)手术时长,(4)直接医疗成本,(5)患者成本,以及(6)平均和增量成本效益比。
开放式胆囊切除术的并发症发生率为13.5%,腹腔镜胆囊切除术为6.4%(p = 0.02);开放式胆囊切除术的住院时间长于腹腔镜胆囊切除术(p = 0.003),患者报告的恢复日常活动情况也是如此(p < 0.001)。开放式胆囊切除术的时长比腹腔镜胆囊切除术长22分钟(p < 0.001)。腹腔镜胆囊切除术的平均成本低于开放式胆囊切除术,且腹腔镜胆囊切除术比开放式胆囊切除术更具成本效益(分别为995美元和1048美元)。与腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比,开放式胆囊切除术患者的自付费用更高(p = 0.015)。死亡率为零。
开放式腹腔镜手术与更长的住院时间相关,而胆囊切除术需要更长的手术时长。后者对医疗机构和患者的直接成本都更低。两种手术的成本效益相当。