Author
Listed:
- Herng-Chia Chiu
- Hui-Min Hsieh
- Chi-Lin Wan
- Hsiang-Lin Tsai
- Jaw-Yuan Wang
Abstract
Objective: Surgical technique process innovations are expected to generally incur no additional cost but gain better quality. Whether a mini-laparotomy surgery (MLS) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is more cost effective than conventional open surgery had not been well examined. The objective of this study was to apply cost-effectiveness approaches to investigate the cost effectiveness of adopting MLS compared with open surgery 1 year following resection in CRC patients. Research design: A prospective non-randomized cohort study design Setting: An academic medical center Participants: A total of 224 patients who received elective MLS and 339 who received conventional surgery; after propensity score matching, 212 pairs were included for analysis. Intervention: None Main outcome measures: Cost measures were hospital-index cost and outpatient and inpatient costs within 1 year after discharge. Effectiveness measures were life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs) gained. Statistical methods: We calculated incremental costs and effectiveness by differences in these values between MLS and conventional surgery using adjusted predicted estimates. Results: MLS patients had lower rates of blood transfusions, less complication, and shorter post-surgical lengths of stay and more medical cost savings. One-year overall medical costs for MLS patients were TWD 748,269 (USD 24,942) per QALY gained, significant lower than for the comparison group (p-value = 0.045). Conclusion: Our findings supported that the less invasive surgical process through MLS not only saved medical costs, but also increased QALYs for surgical treatment in CRC patients.
Suggested Citation
Herng-Chia Chiu & Hui-Min Hsieh & Chi-Lin Wan & Hsiang-Lin Tsai & Jaw-Yuan Wang, 2019.
"Cost-effectiveness of mini-laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancers: A propensity scoring matching approach,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, January.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0209970
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209970
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0209970. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.