Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2890984845> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2890984845 endingPage "527" @default.
- W2890984845 startingPage "521" @default.
- W2890984845 abstract "Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis Daiane Oliveira Tayar,1 Ulysses Ribeiro Jr,2 Ivan Cecconello,2 Tiago M Magalhães,3 Claudia M Simões,4 José Otávio C Auler Jr1 1Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil; 2Department of Gastroenterology, University of São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil; 3Department of Statistics, Institute of Exact Sciences, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil; 4Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Cancer Institute of the State of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Background: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer.Methods: Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs.Results: Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients’ baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs.Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider’s perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay. Keywords: rectal cancer, laparoscopy, open surgery, propensity score matching, health care costs, cost analysis" @default.
- W2890984845 created "2018-09-27" @default.
- W2890984845 creator A5030773549 @default.
- W2890984845 creator A5061299159 @default.
- W2890984845 creator A5064523156 @default.
- W2890984845 creator A5065427066 @default.
- W2890984845 creator A5067541948 @default.
- W2890984845 creator A5084368056 @default.
- W2890984845 date "2018-09-01" @default.
- W2890984845 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
- W2890984845 title "Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis" @default.
- W2890984845 cites W1480980058 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W1849658300 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W1961843213 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W1968040565 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W1992463585 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2021990315 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2022238859 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2028197822 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2031970491 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2040789064 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2043591049 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2045164627 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2089521165 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2095885384 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2096998881 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2104111028 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2112644438 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2115402168 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2119684386 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2138898868 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2139094974 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2144284530 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2156182721 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2158491826 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2163700118 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2197711851 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2324447723 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2327228438 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2475050958 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2552055927 @default.
- W2890984845 cites W2767498115 @default.
- W2890984845 doi "https://doi.org/10.2147/ceor.s173718" @default.
- W2890984845 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6140693" @default.
- W2890984845 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30254479" @default.
- W2890984845 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
- W2890984845 type Work @default.
- W2890984845 sameAs 2890984845 @default.
- W2890984845 citedByCount "4" @default.
- W2890984845 countsByYear W28909848452020 @default.
- W2890984845 countsByYear W28909848452022 @default.
- W2890984845 countsByYear W28909848452023 @default.
- W2890984845 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2890984845 hasAuthorship W2890984845A5030773549 @default.
- W2890984845 hasAuthorship W2890984845A5061299159 @default.
- W2890984845 hasAuthorship W2890984845A5064523156 @default.
- W2890984845 hasAuthorship W2890984845A5065427066 @default.
- W2890984845 hasAuthorship W2890984845A5067541948 @default.
- W2890984845 hasAuthorship W2890984845A5084368056 @default.
- W2890984845 hasBestOaLocation W28909848451 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C17923572 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C2776111594 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C2780047204 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C526805850 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C121608353 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C126322002 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C141071460 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C17923572 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C2776111594 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C2780047204 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C526805850 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C61434518 @default.
- W2890984845 hasConceptScore W2890984845C71924100 @default.
- W2890984845 hasLocation W28909848451 @default.
- W2890984845 hasLocation W28909848452 @default.
- W2890984845 hasLocation W28909848453 @default.
- W2890984845 hasLocation W28909848454 @default.
- W2890984845 hasOpenAccess W2890984845 @default.
- W2890984845 hasPrimaryLocation W28909848451 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W2050609593 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W2169612272 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W2357376993 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W2740936504 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W2743877251 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W3082848906 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W3127657135 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W3144788386 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W4283779772 @default.
- W2890984845 hasRelatedWork W2229651939 @default.
- W2890984845 hasVolume "Volume 10" @default.
- W2890984845 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2890984845 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2890984845 magId "2890984845" @default.