| Title |
Cost-utility analysis comparing laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Vascular Health and Risk Management, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/vhrm.s138516 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Helene Krog, Mehdi Sahba, Erik M Pettersen, Torbjørn Wisløff, Jon O Sundhagen, Syed SH Kazmi |
| Abstract |
Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass has become an established treatment option for symptomatic aortoiliac obstructive disease at dedicated centers. Minimally invasive surgical techniques like laparoscopic surgery have often been shown to reduce expenses and increase patients' health-related quality of life. The main objective of our study was to measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs after totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass. This was a within trial analysis in a larger ongoing randomized controlled prospective multicenter trial, Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial. Fifty consecutive patients suffering from symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease suitable for aortobifemoral bypass surgery were randomized to either totally laparoscopic (n=25) or open surgical procedure (n=25). One patient dropped out of the study before surgery. We measured health-related quality of life using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire at 4 different time points, before surgery and for 6 months during follow-up. We calculated the QALYs gained by using the area under the curve for both groups. Costs were calculated based on prices for surgical equipment, vascular prosthesis and hospital stay. We found a significantly higher increase in QALYs after laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery, with a difference of 0.07 QALYs, (p=0.001) in favor of laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass. The total cost of surgery, equipment and hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery (9,953 €) was less than open surgery (17,260 €), (p=0.001). Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass seems to be cost-effective compared with open surgery, due to an increase in QALYs and lower procedure-related costs. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#747
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,180
of 330,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.