Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:06:49.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Study: Assessing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: The GVHS Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Donald W. M. Juzwishin
Donald W. M. Juzwishin
Affiliation:
Greater Victoria Hospital Society
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes the experience at the Greater Victoria Hospital Society of assessing the appropriateness of introducing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (lap chole) within the framework of an established technology assessment process. Lap chole promised to deliver cost savings; however, these could only be realized by capitalizing on the reduced length of stay by removing the surgical beds from service. A cautionary note is raised as to whether the increased use of lap chole in the population is appropriate.

Type
Special Section: Needs-Based Technology Assessment: Who Can Afford Not to Use It?
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , Fall 1995 , pp. 685 - 694
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Anderson, R. E., & Hunter, J. G.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Cost analysis. Surgical Laparoscopy and Endoscopy, 1991, 1, 82–84.Google Scholar
2.Apelgren, K. N., Blank, M. L., Slomski, C. A., & Hadjis, N. S.Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy, 1994, 8, 32–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Attili, A. G., Carulli, N., Roda, E., et al. Epidemiology of gallstone disease in Italy: Prevalence data of the multicenter Italian study on cholelithiasis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1995, 141, 158–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Comis, J., & Campbell, T.Minimally invasive therapy: A review of the economic considerations of three selected procedures. Ottawa: Queen's —University of Ottawa Economic Projects, 1994.Google Scholar
5.Cutt, J., Ritter, R., & Main, C. The amalgamation of Victoria's hospitals. In Canadian health care management, special report. Toronto: MPL Communications Ltd., 1991, SR 4:1–4:18.Google Scholar
6.Deber, R., Thomson, G. G., & Leatt, P.Technology acquisition in Canada: Control in a regulated market. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Diehl, A. K.Epidemiology and natural history of gallstone disease. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America, 1991, 20, 1–19.Google Scholar
8.Hardy, K. J., Miller, H., Fletcher, D. R., et al. An evaluation of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy. Medical Journal of Australia, 1994, 160, 58–62.Google Scholar
9.Hospital Association of New York State. Medical technology assessment: A model for informed decision making. New York, NY: 1991.Google Scholar
10.Jensen, K. H., & Jorgensen, T.Incidence of gallstones in a Danish population. Gastroenterology, 1991, 100, 790–94.Google Scholar
11.Juzwishin, D., Menon, D., & Olmsted, D. Hospital based technology lap chole programs: Two Canadian examples. World Hospitals and Health Services, in press, 1995.Google Scholar
12.Kesteloot, K., & Penninckx, F.The costs and effects of open versus laparoscopic cholecys tectomies. Health Economics, 1993, 2, 303–12.Google Scholar
13.Legorreta, A. P., Sibler, J. H., Costantino, G. N., et al. Increased cholecystectomy rate after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 270, 1429–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Lowenfels, A. B.Estimating gallstone incidence from prevalence data. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 1992, 27, 984–86.Google Scholar
15.Marshall, D., Clark, E., & Hailey, D.The impact of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Canada and Australia. Health Policy, 1994, 26, 221–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Mendez-Sanchez, N., Jessurun, J., Pociano-Rodriguez, G., et al. Prevalence of gallstone disease in Mexico. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 1993, 38, 680–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Menon, D., & Marshall, D.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy diffusion in Canada. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1994, 10, 287–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Sanabria, J. R., Clavien, P. A., Cywes, R., & Strasberg, S. M.Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: A matched study. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 1993, 36, 330–36.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Strasberg, S. M., & Clavien, P. A.Overview of therapeutic modalities for the treatment of gallstone diseases. American Journal of Surgery, 1993, 165, 420–26.Google Scholar
20.Su, C. H., Lui, W. Y., & P'eng, F. K.Relative prevalence of gallstone diseases in Taiwan: A nationwide cooperative study. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 1992, 37, 764–68.Google Scholar
21.Wulff, U.Endoscopic surgery: Economic aspects from the viewpoint of a university clinic (in German). Zentralblattfur Chirurgie. Universitat zu Koln: Medizinische Einrichtungen, 118(1), Discussion 12, 1993, 8–11.Google Scholar