Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Jul 7:45:36-39.
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2019.07.004. eCollection 2019 Sep.

Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery

Affiliations
Review

Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery

Khalid N Alsowaina et al. Ann Med Surg (Lond). .

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is ranked as the fourth malignant cause of mortality. With the tremendous revolution in the modern medical techniques, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated into rectal surgery. The effectiveness of surgical procedures is usually measured by a combination of qualitative (quality of life) and quantitative (years of life) measures, while the costs should reflect the use of different resources that were involved in delivering the medical care and they are affected by several factors, including length of hospital stay. In this review, we provide an insight into the cost-effectiveness of the different types of rectal surgeries in order to present a systematic approach for future preferences. A comprehensive literature review using Medline (via PUBMED), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (via clinical trial.org) was performed. Minimally invasive rectal surgeries have considerable cost-effective properties that outweigh those of the open techniques in terms of earlier return to bowel function, lower morbidity rates, reduced pain, shorter length of hospital stay and the overall patients' quality of life although there was no difference in long-term oncological and survival outcomes. The paucity of currently available long-term oncologic, quality of life, and economic outcomes may limit an adequate comparison of robotic surgeries to other surgical techniques. It is therefore recommended to conduct focused studies to help balance the cost/benefit factors along with other technical considerations aimed at reducing the cost of robotic systems with subsequent improvement of their cost-effectiveness.

Keywords: Colorectal; Cost-effectiveness; Laparoscopy; Rectal surgery; Robotics; TaTME.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Brody H. Colorectal cancer. Nature. 2015;521(7551):S1. - PubMed
    1. Arnold M., Sierra M.S., Laversanne M., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A., Bray F. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut. 2016;66(4):683–691. gutjnl-2015-310912. - PubMed
    1. Heald R.J., Husband E.M., Ryall R.D. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery--the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br. J. Surg. 1982;69(10):613–616. - PubMed
    1. Roxburgh C.S., Guillem J.G. Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. Jama oncology. 2017;3(1):115–116. - PubMed
    1. Lacy A.M., Tasende M.M., Delgado S., Fernandez-Hevia M., Jimenez M., De Lacy B. Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: outcomes after 140 patients. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2015;221(2):415–423. - PubMed