A cost-utility analysis of laparoscopic vs open treatment of colorectal cancer in a public hospital of the Greek National Health System.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic colectomy has been reported as a safe and oncologically similar operation to open colectomy. A number of expensive surgical instruments are necessary for the procedure which should be applied if it is cost-effective for the patient and the health system in general. The purpose of the current study was the economic evaluation of laparoscopic compared to open colectomy for the treatment of colon cancer in the Greek national health system. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing open colectomy and 42 undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were enrolled in this case-control study. Length of hospital stay, duration of operation, complication rates, cost of equipment used, total costs and three questionnaires measuring quality of life /QoL (EQ-5D, SF-36 and QLQ-C30) at baseline, 1 and 3 months after the operation were recorded. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in QoL measured by QALYs between laparoscopic and open colectomy was observed. On the other hand, cost utility analysis revealed that laparoscopic colectomy was more expensive considering the advantages it offers. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colectomy is not superior to open colectomy on a QoL basis in the Greek public hospital system and is less cost-effective compared to the open procedure. Since the expensive equipment used in laparoscopic colectomy seems to be the causative factor for the high cost of this type of operation, an effort should be made to reduce it either by using reusable instruments or by implementing policies aiming at suppliers cutting down equipment charges.

Rectoanal repair versus suture haemorrhoidopexy: a comparative study on suture mucopexy procedures for high-grade haemorrhoids.

BACKGROUND: The isolated application of Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation (DGHAL) may fail due to the increased reprolapse rate for high-grade haemorrhoids. DGHAL has been combined with a proctoscopic-assisted transanal rectal mucopexy of the prolapsing tissue. The technique is called rectoanal repair (RAR) and is an evolution of various mucopexy and suture haemorrhoidopexy (SHP) techniques. A prominent external component may require minimal (muco-) cutaneous excision (MMCE) of protruding anoderm or minor cutaneous excision of skin tags. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with symptomatic Goligher grade III and IV haemorrhoids underwent DGHAL followed by either RAR or SHP. In 26 cases, the addition of MMCE was necessary. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two approaches with regards to pain scores measured with visual analogue scale (VAS). On postoperative day 1, mean pain score at rest was 5.81 (±2.23 SD) after SHP versus 5.08 (±2.35 SD) after RAR, while mean pain score at first defecation was 7.31 (±1.6 SD) versus 7.52 (±1.83 SD). There was no difference in the duration of analgesic requirements, postoperative complications and residual prolapse between the 2 procedures. The addition of MMCE did not affect postoperative pain nor analgesic requirements. With the exception of 8 patients who still had with skin tags or minimal protrusion, the remaining of patients (86 %) were asymptomatic and recurrence-free at an average follow-up of 20 months. Overall, 94.8 % of patients stated that they were satisfied with the results, and 91.2 % that they would repeat it if necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of either SHP or RAR after DGHAL is a safe and effective surgical tactic for advanced grade haemorrhoids. Our initial results do not confirm any superiority of RAR over traditional SHP.