Cost effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy

Transplantation

Volumn 87, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 831-838

  Hamidi, Vida ^a,b   Andersen, Marit Helen ^b   Øyen, Ole ^b   Mathisen, Lars ^b   Fosse, Erik ^b   Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø ^c,d  

^a NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^b OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Cost utility analysis; Laparoscopy; Living donor nephrectomy; SF 6D

Indexed keywords

NARCOTIC ANALGESIC AGENT; OPIATE;

ADULT; AGED; ANALGESIA; ARTICLE; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; DRUG COST; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY DONOR; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LENGTH OF STAY; LIVING DONOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL LEAVE; NEPHRECTOMY; OPERATING ROOM PERSONNEL; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT FORM 36; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EMPLOYMENT; FAMILY; LAPAROSCOPY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; RANDOMIZATION; RENAL ARTERY; REOPERATION; TRANSPLANTATION;

ADULT; AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EMPLOYMENT; FAMILY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; LIVING DONORS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHRECTOMY; NORWAY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RENAL ARTERY; REOPERATION; TISSUE AND ORGAN HARVESTING;

EID: 65549157966     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318199cfc9     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Glanton CW, Kao TC, Cruess D, et al. Impact of renal transplantation on survival in end-stage renal disease patients with elevated body mass index. Kidney Int 2003; 63: 647.
2. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al. Patient survival for waitlisted dialysis versus cadaveric renal transplant patients in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 1999: 1725.
3. Organ Donation Ontario. 1999 Annual Statistics Report. Toronto, Organ Donation Ontario 1997, 1.
4. U.S. Renal Data System. USRDS 1994-1995 Annual Data Report. The national Institutes of Health, National institute of Diabetes and Digestive and kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD 1995.
5. Najarian JS, Chavers BM, McHugh LE, et al. 20 years or more of follow-up of living kidney donors. Lancet 1992; 340: 807.
6. Challacombe B, Mamode N. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 2961.
7. Mullins CD, Thomas SK, Pradel FG, et al. The economic impact of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy on kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2003; 75: 1505.
8. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Schulam PG, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy versus the standard open approach. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 138.
9. Schulam PG, Kavoussi LR, Cheriff AD, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: The initial 3 cases. J Urol 1996; 155: 1857.
10. Flowers JL, Jacobs S, Cho E, et al. Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 1997; 226: 483.
11. Hiller J, Sroka M, Holochek MJ, et al. Functional advantages of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy compared with conventional opendonor nephrectomy. J Transpl Coord 1997; 7: 134.
12. Kercher KW, Heniford BT, Matthews BD, et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in 210 consecutive patients: Outcomes, cost, and changes in practice patterns. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 1889.
13. Pace KT, Dyer SJ, Phan V, et al. Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 134.
14. Berney T, Malaise J, Mourad M, et al. Laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy: A cost/benefit study. Transpl Int 2000; 13: 35.
15. Wolf JS, Marcovich R, Merion RM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open surgical live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 2001; 72: 284.
16. Giessing M, Reuter S, Schonberger B, et al. Quality of life of living kidney donors in germany: A survey with the validated short form-36 and giessen subjective complaints list-24 questionnaires. Transplantation 2004; 78: 864.
17. Neipp M, Jackobs S, Becker T, et al. Living donor nephrectomy: Flank incision versus anterior vertical mini-incision. Transplantation 2004; 78: 1356.
18. Schnitzbauer AA, Hornung M, Seidel U, et al. Does mini-incision donor nephrectomy improve quality of life in living kidney donors? Clin Transplant 2007; 21: 235.
19. Perry KT, Freedland SJ, Hu JC, et al. Quality of life, pain and return to normal activities following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open mini-incision donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2003; 169: 2018.
20. Andersen MH, Mathisen L, Oyen O, et al. Postoperative pain and convalescence in living kidney donors-laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: A randomized study. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 1438.
21. Andersen MH, Mathisen L, Veenstra M, et al. Quality of life after randomization to laparoscopic versus open living donor nephrectomy: Long-term follow-up. Transplantation 2007; 84: 64.
22. Oyen O, Andersen M, Mathisen L, et al. Laparoscopic versus open living-donor nephrectomy: Experiences from a prospective, randomized, single-center study focusing on donor safety. Transplantation 2005; 79: 1236.
23. Szczepuea A, Kankaanpää J. Assessment of health care technologies. New York, NY: Wiley; 1996.
24. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271.
25. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1115.
26. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs, [ed. 3]. New York, NY: Oxford University Press 2005, pp 103.
27. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trialbased cost-effectiveness analysis: The importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005; 14: 487.
28. Wadstrom J. Laparoscopic donor nephrectopmy: Is it cost effective? Perspective from a transplant surgeon. Transplantation 2007; 83: 1538.
29. Kok NF, Adang EM, Hansson BM, et al. Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy: A randomized study. Transplantation 2007; 83: 1582.
30. Lennerling A, Blohme I, Ostraat O, et al. Laparoscopic or open surgery for living donor nephrectomy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16: 383.
31. Lindstrom P, Haggman M, Wadstrom J. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for live donor nephrectomy is more time- and costeffective than standard laparoscopic nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 422.
32. Kasiske BL, Ravenscraft M, Ramos EL, et al. The evaluation of living renal transplant donors: Clinical practice guidelines. Ad Hoc Clinical Practice Guidelines Subcommittee of the Patient Care and Education Committee of the American Society of Transplant Physicians. J AmSoc Nephrol 1996; 7: 2288.
33. Dumville JC, Manca A, Kitchener HC, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of open colposuspension versus laparoscopic colposuspension in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG 2006; 113: 1014.
34. Sculpher M, Manca A, Abbott J, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: Results from a randomised trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 134.