Cost of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy

Clinica Terapeutica

Volumn 159, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 155-163

  Kuwabara, Kazuaki ^a,h   Imanaka, Y ^b   Matsuda, S ^c   Fushimi, K ^d   Hashimoto, H ^e   Ishikawa, K B ^f   Horiguchi, H ^e   Hayashida, K ^b   Fujimor, K ^g  

^a KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH   (Japan)

^d TOKYO MEDICAL AND DENTAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^f NATIONAL CANCER CENTER   (Japan)

^g HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^h KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Case mix classification; Laparoscopic appendectomy; Open appendectomy; Outcome; Resource use

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; APPENDECTOMY; APPENDICITIS; ARTICLE; CASE MIX; COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; COST OF ILLNESS; DEMOGRAPHY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JAPAN; LAPAROSCOPIC APPENDECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MONEY; OPEN APPENDECTOMY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; APPENDECTOMY; APPENDICITIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 47549106331     PISSN: 00099074     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Nakajima J, Takamoto S, Kohno T, et al. Costs of videothoracoscopic surgery versus open resection for patients with of lung carcinoma. Cancer 2000; 89(Suppl):2497-501
2. Nakata M, Saeki H, Yokoyama N, et al. Pulmonary function after lobectomy: video-assisted thoracic surgery versus thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 70:938-41
3. Cohen DJ, Breall JA, Ho Kalon KL, et al. Economics of Elective Coronary Revascularization Comparison of Costs and Charges for Conventional Angioplasty, Directional Atherectomy, Stenting, and Bypass Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22:1052-9
4. Clark MA, Bakhai A, Lacey MJ, et al. Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in the Elderly. Circulation 2004; 110:259-64
5. Olmi S, Magnone S, Bertolini A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc 2005; 19:1193-5
6. Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg 2005; 242:439-48
7. Li P, Xu Q, Ji Z, et al. Comparison of surgical stress between laparoscopic and open appendectomy in children. J Pediatr Surg 2005; 40:1279-83
8. Moberg AC, Berndsen F, Palmquist I, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis.Br J Surg 2005; 92:298-304
9. Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Outcome comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg 2004; 239:43-52
10. Aziz O, Athanasiou T, Tekkis PP, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2006; 243:17-27
11. Subramanian U, Weiberger M, Eckert GJ, et al. Geographic Variation in Health Care Utilization and Outcomes in Veterans with Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17:604-11
12. Krumholz HM, Chen J, Rathore SS, et al. Regional variation in the treatment and outcomes of myocardial infarction: Investigating New England's advantage. Am Heart J 2003; 146:242-9
13. Pilote L, Califf RM, Sapp S, et al. Regional variation across the United States in the management of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:565-72
14. Mukherjee D, Wainess RM, Dimick JB, et al. Variation in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in the united states and predictors of periprocedural mortality. Cardiology 2005; 103:143-7
15. Lauer MA, Karweit JA, Cascade EF, et al. Practice variation and outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in the United States 1995 to 1997. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89:924-9
16. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labor. Survey of National Medical Care Insurance Services 1996 (in Japanese). Tokyo, Japan: Health and Welfare Statistics Association, 1998
17. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labor. Survey of National Medical Care Insurance Services 2001 (in Japanese). Tokyo, Japan: Health and Welfare Statistics Association, 2003
18. Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM dministrative data: differing perspective. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1075-9
19. Zhan C, Miller MR. Adiministrative data based patient safety research: a critical review. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12:58-63
20. The World Health Report 2002 - Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. Statistical annex. Available at: http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/)
21. Cothren CC, Moore EE, Johnson JL, et al. Can we afford to do laparoscopic appendectomy in an academic hospital? Am J Surg. 2005; 190:950-4
22. Bresciani C, Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, et al. Laparoscopic versus standard appendectomy outcomes and cost comparisons in the private sector. J Gastrointest Surg 2005; 9:1174-80
23. Matsui K, Fukui T, Hira K, et al. Differences in management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction among four general hospitals in Japan. Int J Cardiol 2001; 78:277-84
24. Ishizaki T, Imanaka Y, Hirose M, et al. A first look at variations in use of breast conserving surgery at five teaching hospitals in Japan. Int J Qual Health Care 2002; 5:411