Costs and Effects of Abdominal versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Systematic Review of Controlled Trials

Objective: Comparative evaluation of costs and effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH). Data sources: Controlled trials from Cochrane Central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase and prospective trial registers. Selection of studies: Twelve (randomized) controlled studies including the search terms costs, laparoscopy, laparotomy and hysterectomy were identified. Methods: The type of cost analysis, perspective of cost analyses and separate cost components were assessed. The direct and indirect costs were extracted from the original studies. For the cost estimation, hospital stay and procedure costs were selected as most important cost drivers. As main outcome the major complication rate was taken. Findings: Analysis was performed on 2226 patients, of which 1013 (45.5%) in the LH group and 1213 (54.5%) in the AH group. Five studies scored >= 10 points (out of 19) for methodological quality. The reported total direct costs in the LH group ($63,997) were 6.1$60,114). The reported total indirect costs of the LH group ($1,609) were half of the total indirect in the AH group ($3,139). The estimated mean major complication rate in the LH group (14.3%) was lower than in the AH group (15.9%). The estimated total costs in the LH group were $3,884 versus$3,312 in the AH group. The incremental costs for reducing one patient with major complication(s) in the LH group compared to the AH group was $35,750. Conclusions: The shorter hospital stay in the LH group compensates for the increased procedure costs, with less morbidity. LH points in the direction of cost effectiveness, however further research is warranted with a broader costs perspective including long term effects as societal benefit, quality of life and survival

Late Cenozoic tephrostratigraphy offshore the southern Central American Volcanic Arc: 1. Tephra ages and provenance

We studied the tephra inventory of 18 deep sea drill sites from six DSDP/ODP legs (Legs 84, 138, 170, 202, 205, 206) and two IODP legs (Legs 334 and 344) offshore the southern Central American Volcanic Arc (CAVA). Eight drill sites are located on the incoming Cocos plate and ten drill sites on the continental slope of the Caribbean plate. In total we examined ∼840 ash-bearing horizons and identified ∼650 of these as primary ash beds of which 430 originated from the CAVA. Correlations of ash beds were established between marine cores and with terrestrial tephra deposits, using major and trace element glass compositions with respect to relative stratigraphic order. As a prerequisite for marine-terrestrial correlations we present a new geochemical data set for significant Neogene and Quaternary Costa Rican tephras. Moreover, new Ar/Ar ages for marine tephras have been determined and marine ash beds are also dated using the pelagic sedimentation rates. The resulting correlations and provenance analyses build a tephrochronostratigraphic framework for Costa Rica and Nicaragua that covers the last >8 Myr. We define 39 correlations of marine ash beds to specific tephra formations in Costa Rica and Nicaragua; from the 4.15 Ma Lower Sandillal Ignimbrite to the 3.5 ka Rincón de la Vieja Tephra from Costa Rica, as well as another 32 widely distributed tephra layers for which their specific region of origin along Costa Rica and Nicaragua can be constrained

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>LA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.</p