AURA Takes you to the home page

Aberdeen University Research Archive >
6 - All research >
All research >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

This item has been viewed 1 times in the last year. View Statistics

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Hernandez 2008.pdf165.27 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer
Authors: Hernández, Rodolfo Andrés
De Verteuil, Robyn
Fraser, Cynthia Mary
Vale, Luke David
Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group
University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health Sciences
Keywords: economic evaluation
systematic review
cost effectiveness
laparoscopic surgery
colorectal cancer
Issue Date: 2008
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Citation: Hernandez, R.A., de Verteuil, R.M., Fraser, C.M., and Vale, L.D., (2008) Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Disease, 10(9), pp.859-868.
Abstract: Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000. Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain). Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.
ISSN: 1462-8910
Rights: The definitive version is available at
Appears in Collections:Applied Health Sciences research
All research

SFX Query

Items in AURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.


The University of Aberdeen
King's College
AB24 3FX
Tel: +44 (0)1224-272000