4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

A cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative cholangiography in the prevention of bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
Volume 196, Issue 3, Pages 385-393

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01806-9

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Recent population-based studies have demonstrated that the use of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is associated with a decrease in the rate of common bile duct (CBD) injury. The cost implications of a management strategy involving routine IOC use have not been adequately evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: Decision analytic models were developed to analyze costs and benefits of routine IOC use during LC. The models were used to calculate the cost per life saved, cost per CBD injury avoided, and incremental cost of IOC when used routinely. Transition probabilities, costs, and outcomes were derived from published sources. Sensitivity analyses were used to account for uncertainty in these estimates. RESULTS: Using base-case estimates, management of patients undergoing LC with routine IOC would cost $100 more per LC. Routine IOC would prevent 2.5 deaths for every 10,000 patients at a cost of $390,000 per life saved ($13,900 per life year saved). The cost per CBD injury avoided with IOC use is $87,143. The cost per CBD injury avoided is less for procedures done in high-risk patients (approximately $8,000) or by less experienced surgeons (approximately $61,000). CONCLUSIONS: These models describe settings where the cost of IOC and the reduction in CBD injury rates make routine IOC use cost effective. Routine IOC use among less experienced surgeons and in high-risk operations is the most cost effective, but the cost implications of routine use for the general population should also be considered cost effective. (C) 2003 by the American College of Surgeons.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available