Delayed assessment and eager adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Implications for developing surgical technologies

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 16, Issue 33, 2010, Pages 4115-4122

  Allori, Alexander C ^a   Leitman, I Michael ^a   Heitman, Elizabeth ^b  

^a BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cholecystectomy; Comparative effectiveness research; Endoscopy; Evidence based medicine; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CHOLECYSTITIS; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MORTALITY; SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77956569207     PISSN: 10079327     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i33.4115     Document Type: Editorial

References (74)

1. Keus F, Werner JE, Gooszen HG, Oostvogel HJ, van Laarhoven CJ. Randomized clinical trial of small-incision and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis: primary and clinical outcomes. Arch Surg 2008; 143: 371-377; discussion 377-378
2. Ros A, Gustafsson L, Krook H, Nordgren CE, Thorell A, Wallin G, Nilsson E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Ann Surg 2001; 234: 741-749
3. Mimica Z, Biocić M, Bacić A, Banović I, Tocilj J, Radonić V, Ilić N, Petricević A. Laparoscopic and laparotomic cholecystectomy: a randomized trial comparing postoperative respiratory function. Respiration 2000; 67: 153-158
4. Johansson M, Thune A, Nelvin L, Stiernstam M, Westman B, Lundell L. Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 44-49
5. Harju J, Juvonen P, Eskelinen M, Miettinen P, Pääkkönen M. Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized study with special reference to obesity. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 583-586
6. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ. Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 1178-1183
7. Purkayastha S, Tilney HS, Georgiou P, Athanasiou T, Tekkis PP, Darzi AW. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Surg Endosc 2007; 21: 1294-1300
8. Dolan JP, Diggs BS, Sheppard BC, Hunter JG. The national mortality burden and significant factors associated with open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 1997-2006. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13: 2292-2301
9. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Mentha G, Borst F, Buhler L, Roche B, Cywes R, Tibshirani R, Rohner A, Strasberg SM. Recent results of elective open cholecystectomy in a North American and a European center. Comparison of complications and risk factors. Ann Surg 1992; 216: 618-626
10. Mühe E. Long-term follow-up after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Endoscopy 1992; 24: 754-758
11. Mühe E. [Laparoscopic cholecystectomy] Z Gastroenterol Verh 1991; 26: 204-206
12. Mühe E. [Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Late results] Klin Khir 1991; 10-13
13. Mühe E. [Laparoscopic cholecystectomy--late results] Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 1991; 416-423
14. Mouret P. How I developed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1996; 25: 744-747
15. Delaitre B, Testas P, Dubois F, Mouret P, Nouaille JM, Suc B, Collet D. [Complications of cholecystectomy by laparoscopic approach. Apropos of 6512 cases] Chirurgie 1992; 118: 92-99; discussion 100-102
16. Cuschieri A, Dubois F, Mouiel J, Mouret P, Becker H, Buess G, Trede M, Troidl H. The European experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1991; 161: 385-387
17. Mouret P. La cholecystectomie endoscopique à 4 ans. La coelio-chirurgie tient une solide tête de pont. Lyon Chirurgie 1991; 87: 179-182
18. Dubois F, Berthelot G, Levard H. [Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Technique and complications. Report of 2,665 cases] Bull Acad Natl Med 1995; 179: 1059-1066; discussion 1066-1068
19. Dubois F. [Celioscopic cholecystectomy] Rev Prat 1992; 42: 1497-1500
20. Dubois F, Berthelot G, Levard H. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: historic perspective and personal experience. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1991; 1: 52-57
21. Dubois F, Berthelot G, Levard H. [Cholecystectomy under celioscopy] Ann Chir 1990; 44: 206-205; discussion 205-206
22. Dubois F, Icard P, Berthelot G, Levard H. Coelioscopic cholecystectomy. Preliminary report of 36 cases. Ann Surg 1990; 211: 60-62
23. Perissat J, Collet D, Belliard R. Gallstones: laparoscopic treatment-cholecystectomy, cholecystostomy, and lithotripsy. Our own technique. Surg Endosc 1990; 4: 1-5
24. Perissat J, Collet DR, Belliard R. Gallstones: laparoscopic treatment, intracorporeal lithotripsy followed by cholecystostomy or cholecystectomy-a personal technique. Endoscopy 1989; 21 Suppl 1: 373-374
25. McKinlay JB. From "promising report" to "standard procedure": seven stages in the career of a medical innovation. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc 1981; 59: 374-411
26. Allori AC. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Literature: Too Little, Too Late? Methods in Health-Care Technology Assessment. Houston: University of Texas School of Public Health, 1999
27. Institute of Medicine Council on Health Care Technology. Assessing Medical Technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985. Available from: URL: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=607&page=R1. Last accessed May 1, 2009
28. Goodman C. It's time to rethink health care technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8: 335-358
29. Kane RL, Lurie N, Borbas C, Morris N, Flood S, McLaughlin B, Nemanich G, Schultz A. The outcomes of elective laparoscopic and open cholecystectomies. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180: 136-145
30. Hardy KJ, Miller H, Fletcher DR, Jones RM, Shulkes A, McNeil JJ. An evaluation of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy. Med J Aust 1994; 160: 58-62
31. Hardy KJ. Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a consensus? Aust N Z J Surg 1994; 64: 583-587
32. Carey LC. Cholecystectomy-a new standard. Ann Surg 1992; 216: 617
33. Moss G. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the gold standard. J Laparoendosc Surg 1995; 5: 63-64
34. Hirsch NA. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Aust Clin Rev 1992; 12: 23-27
35. Anderson RE, Hunter JG. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is less expensive than open cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1991; 1: 82-84
36. Fisher KS, Reddick EJ, Olsen DO. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: cost analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1991; 1: 77-81
37. Kesteloot K, Penninckx F. The costs and effects of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Health Econ 1993; 2: 303-312
38. Cook J, Richardson J, Street A. A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results. Health Econ 1994; 3: 157-168
39. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 699-707
40. NIH Consensus conference. Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 1993; 269: 1018-1024
41. O'Brien PE. The endosurgical revolution: is it under control? Aust N Z J Surg 1994; 64: 588
42. Juzwishin DW. Case study: assessing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The GVHS experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11: 685-694
43. Sawyers JL. Current status of conventional (open) cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 1996; 223: 1-3
44. Goodman CS. HTA 101: Introduction to Health Technology Assessment: A Tool for Technology Management and Improved Patient Outcomes, 1995, revised 2004. Available from: URL: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/hta101.pdf. Last accessed May 1, 2009
45. Goodman CS, Ahn R. Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. Int J Med Inform 1999; 56: 97-105
46. Institute of Medicine Council on Health Care Technology. Quality of Care and Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985
47. Brooks H. The relationship between science and technology. Res Pol 1994; 23: 477-486
48. McMahon AJ, O'Dwyer PJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy and the need for a randomized trial: a survey of surgeons and ethical committees in the British Isles. J Laparoendosc Surg 1992; 2: 277-280
49. Heitman E. Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14: 544-566
50. Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, Dietrich A, Lefering R. Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group. Br J Surg 1991; 78: 150-154
51. Giday SA, Magno P, Kalloo AN. NOTES: the future. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2008; 18: 387-395; xi
52. Marescaux J, Dallemagne B, Perretta S, Wattiez A, Mutter D, Coumaros D. Surgery without scars: report of transluminal cholecystectomy in a human being. Arch Surg 2007; 142: 823-826; discussion 826-827
53. Ko CW, Kalloo AN. Per-oral transgastric abdominal surgery. Chin J Dig Dis 2006; 7: 67-70
54. Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB, Isakovich NV, Chung SS, Cotton PB, Gostout CJ, Hawes RH, Pasricha PJ, Nakajima Y, Kawashima K, Kalloo AN. Technical feasibility of endoscopic gastric reduction: a pilot study in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 510-513
55. Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB, Vaughn CA, Beitler DM, Chung SS, Cotton PB, Gostout CJ, Hawes RH, Pasricha PJ, Magee CA, Pipitone LJ, Talamini MA, Kalloo AN. Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: is it possible? Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 522-525
56. Kantsevoy SV, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Chung SS, Cotton PB, Gostout CJ, Hawes RH, Pasricha PJ, Magee CA, Vaughn CA, Barlow D, Shimonaka H, Kalloo AN. Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy with survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 287-292
57. Jagannath SB, Kantsevoy SV, Vaughn CA, Chung SS, Cotton PB, Gostout CJ, Hawes RH, Pasricha PJ, Scorpio DG, Magee CA, Pipitone LJ, Kalloo AN. Peroral transgastric endoscopic ligation of fallopian tubes with long-term survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 449-453
58. Fong DG, Pai RD, Thompson CC. Transcolonic endoscopic abdominal exploration: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 312-318
59. Pai RD, Fong DG, Bundga ME, Odze RD, Rattner DW, Thompson CC. Transcolonic endoscopic cholecystectomy: a NOTES survival study in a porcine model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 428-434
60. Giday SA, Kantsevoy SV, Kalloo AN. Current status of natural orifice translumenal surgery. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2007; 17: 595-604, viii
61. Willingham FF, Brugge WR. Taking NOTES: translumenal flexible endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2007; 23: 550-555
62. Willingham FF, Gee DW, Sylla P, Kambadakone A, Singh AH, Sahani D, Mino-Kenudson M, Rattner DW, Brugge WR. Natural orifice versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a porcine model: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 740-747
63. Gettman MT, Lotan Y, Napper CA, Cadeddu JA. Transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomy: development and feasibility in the porcine model. Urology 2002; 59: 446-450
64. Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, Magee CA, Kantsevoy SV. Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 114-117
65. Rattner D, Kalloo A. ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery. October 2005. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 329-333
66. ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery White Paper October 2005. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 199-203
67. New York-Presbyterian Hospital Second Annual International NOTES Course. Available from: URL: http://www.columbiasurgerycme.org/notes_date_20081215.pdf. Last accessed May 1, 2009
68. Banta HD, Thacker SB. The case for reassessment of health care technology. Once is not enough. JAMA 1990; 264: 235-240
69. Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 1999; 282: 1865-1869
70. Alliance for Health Care Reform. Comparative effectiveness: Better value for the money? Available from: URL:http://www.allhealth.org/Publications/Quality_of_care/C omparative_Effectiveness_Better_Value_for_the_Money_84.pdf. Last accessed May 1, 2009
71. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, Rochaix L, Sawicki PT, Nasser M, Xerri B. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q 2009; 87: 339-367
72. Chalkidou K, Whicher D, Kary W, Tunis S. Comparative effectiveness research priorities: identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25: 241-248
73. Knezo GJ. Technology Assessment in Congress: History and Legislative Options. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2005. Available from: URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21586.pdf. Last accessed May 1, 2009
74. Orszag PR. Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments: Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office of the Congress of the United States, 2007. Available from: URL: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8209/Comparative_Testimony.pdf. Last accessed May 1, 2009