Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>After its introduction, laparoscopic cholecystectomy rapidly expanded around the world and was accepted the procedure of choice by consensus. However, analysis of evidence shows no difference regarding primary outcome measures betwee...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gooszen Hein G, de Jonge Trudy, Keus Frederik, Buskens Erik, van Laarhoven Cornelis JHM
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2009-09-01
Series:Trials
Online Access:http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/10/1/80
id doaj-d9b77e70f1d948b0b65983f553ccb17f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d9b77e70f1d948b0b65983f553ccb17f2020-11-25T00:12:01ZengBMCTrials1745-62152009-09-011018010.1186/1745-6215-10-80Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savingsGooszen Hein Gde Jonge TrudyKeus FrederikBuskens Erikvan Laarhoven Cornelis JHM<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>After its introduction, laparoscopic cholecystectomy rapidly expanded around the world and was accepted the procedure of choice by consensus. However, analysis of evidence shows no difference regarding primary outcome measures between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. In absence of clear clinical benefit it may be interesting to focus on the resource use associated with the available techniques, a secondary outcome measure. This study focuses on a difference in costs between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy from a societal perspective with emphasis on internal validity and generalisability</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A blinded randomized single-centre trial was conducted in a general teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Patients with reasonable to good health diagnosed with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis scheduled for cholecystectomy were included. Patients were randomized between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. Total costs were analyzed from a societal perspective.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Operative costs were higher in the laparoscopic group using reusable laparoscopic instruments (difference 203 euro; 95% confidence interval 147 to 259 euro). There were no significant differences in the other direct cost categories (outpatient clinic and admittance related costs), indirect costs, and total costs. More than 60% of costs in employed patients were caused by sick leave.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on differences in costs, small-incision cholecystectomy seems to be the preferred operative technique over the laparoscopic technique both from a hospital and societal cost perspective. Sick leave associated with convalescence after cholecystectomy in employed patients results in considerable costs to society.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN Register, number ISRCTN67485658.</p> http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/10/1/80
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Gooszen Hein G
de Jonge Trudy
Keus Frederik
Buskens Erik
van Laarhoven Cornelis JHM
spellingShingle Gooszen Hein G
de Jonge Trudy
Keus Frederik
Buskens Erik
van Laarhoven Cornelis JHM
Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings
Trials
author_facet Gooszen Hein G
de Jonge Trudy
Keus Frederik
Buskens Erik
van Laarhoven Cornelis JHM
author_sort Gooszen Hein G
title Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings
title_short Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings
title_full Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings
title_fullStr Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings
title_full_unstemmed Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings
title_sort cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings
publisher BMC
series Trials
issn 1745-6215
publishDate 2009-09-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>After its introduction, laparoscopic cholecystectomy rapidly expanded around the world and was accepted the procedure of choice by consensus. However, analysis of evidence shows no difference regarding primary outcome measures between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. In absence of clear clinical benefit it may be interesting to focus on the resource use associated with the available techniques, a secondary outcome measure. This study focuses on a difference in costs between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy from a societal perspective with emphasis on internal validity and generalisability</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A blinded randomized single-centre trial was conducted in a general teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Patients with reasonable to good health diagnosed with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis scheduled for cholecystectomy were included. Patients were randomized between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. Total costs were analyzed from a societal perspective.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Operative costs were higher in the laparoscopic group using reusable laparoscopic instruments (difference 203 euro; 95% confidence interval 147 to 259 euro). There were no significant differences in the other direct cost categories (outpatient clinic and admittance related costs), indirect costs, and total costs. More than 60% of costs in employed patients were caused by sick leave.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on differences in costs, small-incision cholecystectomy seems to be the preferred operative technique over the laparoscopic technique both from a hospital and societal cost perspective. Sick leave associated with convalescence after cholecystectomy in employed patients results in considerable costs to society.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN Register, number ISRCTN67485658.</p>
url http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/10/1/80
work_keys_str_mv AT gooszenheing costminimizationanalysisinablindrandomizedtrialonsmallincisionversuslaparoscopiccholecystectomyfromasocietalperspectivesickleaveoutweighseffortsinhospitalsavings
AT dejongetrudy costminimizationanalysisinablindrandomizedtrialonsmallincisionversuslaparoscopiccholecystectomyfromasocietalperspectivesickleaveoutweighseffortsinhospitalsavings
AT keusfrederik costminimizationanalysisinablindrandomizedtrialonsmallincisionversuslaparoscopiccholecystectomyfromasocietalperspectivesickleaveoutweighseffortsinhospitalsavings
AT buskenserik costminimizationanalysisinablindrandomizedtrialonsmallincisionversuslaparoscopiccholecystectomyfromasocietalperspectivesickleaveoutweighseffortsinhospitalsavings
AT vanlaarhovencornelisjhm costminimizationanalysisinablindrandomizedtrialonsmallincisionversuslaparoscopiccholecystectomyfromasocietalperspectivesickleaveoutweighseffortsinhospitalsavings
_version_ 1725401698297446400