An economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy

Background. Laparoscopy has generally replaced open surgery in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. This study assesses the impact of the introduction of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of tubal pregnancy on costs. Methods. Consecutive patients undergoing primary surgery for tubal pregnancy bet...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ben W.J Mol, Petra J. Hajenius, Simone Engelsbel, Willem M. Ankum, Fulco Van derVeen, Douwe J. Hemrika, Patrick M.M. Bossuyt
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 1997-06-01
Series:Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349709024591
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849427003752579072
author Ben W.J Mol
Petra J. Hajenius
Simone Engelsbel
Willem M. Ankum
Fulco Van derVeen
Douwe J. Hemrika
Patrick M.M. Bossuyt
author_facet Ben W.J Mol
Petra J. Hajenius
Simone Engelsbel
Willem M. Ankum
Fulco Van derVeen
Douwe J. Hemrika
Patrick M.M. Bossuyt
author_sort Ben W.J Mol
collection DOAJ
description Background. Laparoscopy has generally replaced open surgery in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. This study assesses the impact of the introduction of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of tubal pregnancy on costs. Methods. Consecutive patients undergoing primary surgery for tubal pregnancy between January 1992 and December 1995 were included in the study. Surgery was performed laparo‐scopically or by open surgery. Cost for each treatment was calculated by multiplying resources used with calculated resource unit prices. The analysis was stratified for radical and conservative surgery. Results. Data of 255 patients were analysed. Tubal pregnancy was successfully treated in all patients. Costs per patient were US$ 3,490 for radical open surgery, US$ 1,872 for radical laparoscopic surgery, US$ 3,420 for conservative open surgery and US$ 2,125 for conservative laparoscopic surgery. Differences in costs were caused by a decreased duration of hospital stay after laparoscopy, and, in case of conservative surgery, by an increased persistent tropho‐blast rate after laparoscopy. Conclusions. Laparoscopy is equally effective as open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy, and considerably reduces costs
format Article
id doaj-art-425f81c68fe641f3b697aecbe88ee4be
institution Kabale University
issn 0001-6349
1600-0412
language English
publishDate 1997-06-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
spelling doaj-art-425f81c68fe641f3b697aecbe88ee4be2025-08-20T03:29:10ZengWileyActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica0001-63491600-04121997-06-0176659660010.3109/00016349709024591An economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancyBen W.J Mol0Petra J. Hajenius1Simone Engelsbel2Willem M. Ankum3Fulco Van derVeen4Douwe J. Hemrika5Patrick M.M. Bossuyt6Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsBackground. Laparoscopy has generally replaced open surgery in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. This study assesses the impact of the introduction of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of tubal pregnancy on costs. Methods. Consecutive patients undergoing primary surgery for tubal pregnancy between January 1992 and December 1995 were included in the study. Surgery was performed laparo‐scopically or by open surgery. Cost for each treatment was calculated by multiplying resources used with calculated resource unit prices. The analysis was stratified for radical and conservative surgery. Results. Data of 255 patients were analysed. Tubal pregnancy was successfully treated in all patients. Costs per patient were US$ 3,490 for radical open surgery, US$ 1,872 for radical laparoscopic surgery, US$ 3,420 for conservative open surgery and US$ 2,125 for conservative laparoscopic surgery. Differences in costs were caused by a decreased duration of hospital stay after laparoscopy, and, in case of conservative surgery, by an increased persistent tropho‐blast rate after laparoscopy. Conclusions. Laparoscopy is equally effective as open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy, and considerably reduces costshttps://doi.org/10.3109/00016349709024591conservative surgeryeconomic evaluationlaparoscopyopen surgeryradical surgeryLubal pregnancy
spellingShingle Ben W.J Mol
Petra J. Hajenius
Simone Engelsbel
Willem M. Ankum
Fulco Van derVeen
Douwe J. Hemrika
Patrick M.M. Bossuyt
An economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
conservative surgery
economic evaluation
laparoscopy
open surgery
radical surgery
Lubal pregnancy
title An economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy
title_full An economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy
title_fullStr An economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy
title_full_unstemmed An economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy
title_short An economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy
title_sort economic evaluation of laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of tubal pregnancy
topic conservative surgery
economic evaluation
laparoscopy
open surgery
radical surgery
Lubal pregnancy
url https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349709024591
work_keys_str_mv AT benwjmol aneconomicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT petrajhajenius aneconomicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT simoneengelsbel aneconomicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT willemmankum aneconomicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT fulcovanderveen aneconomicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT douwejhemrika aneconomicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT patrickmmbossuyt aneconomicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT benwjmol economicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT petrajhajenius economicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT simoneengelsbel economicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT willemmankum economicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT fulcovanderveen economicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT douwejhemrika economicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy
AT patrickmmbossuyt economicevaluationoflaparoscopyandopensurgeryinthetreatmentoftubalpregnancy