Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

• Published in: Surgical endoscopy Vol. 9; no. 2; p. 158
• Main Authors: McKellar, D P, Johnson, R M, Dutro, J A, Mellinger, J, Bernie, W A, Peoples, J B
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Germany 01.02.1995
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; Chi-Square Distribution; Cholangiography - economics; Cholangiography - statistics & numerical data; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - economics; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - statistics & numerical data; Cholecystectomy - economics; Cholecystectomy - statistics & numerical data; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - statistics & numerical data; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Elective Surgical Procedures - economics; Elective Surgical Procedures - statistics & numerical data; Emergencies; Female; Hospital Charges - statistics & numerical data; Humans; Male; Medical Records; Middle Aged; Ohio; Retrospective Studies; Ohio
• ISSN: 0930-2794
• DOI: 10.1007/BF00191958

This study retrospectively evaluated the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to open cholecystectomy in a single university-affiliated community hospital. The medical records of all patients that underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy during 1990 and open cholecystectomy during 1989 in one hospital were reviewed. Hospital stay, hospital charges, surgeons' and anesthesiologists' fees were determined. Fifty patients from each group were contacted to determine recovery time to full activity after surgery. Those having common duct exploration and those converted to open cholecystectomy after an attempted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 8) were excluded. A summary of results is included below (Table 1). In our early experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy we found that the total charges for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were more than for open cholecystectomy when one recognizes the 1-year difference in patient accrual between the two groups. Time to full recovery was markedly reduced in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to those having an open procedure. Despite the overall increased total charge with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the shorter recovery period allowing the patients an earlier return to full preoperative activities contributes to its cost-effectiveness when compared to open cholecystectomy. Further experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and refinements in management of these patients should allow for further reductions in charges for this procedure.