title: Cost analysis comparing ultrasonic fundus-first and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy using electrocautery.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Costs associated with laparoscopic fundus-first cholecystectomy using ultrasonic dissection versus a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not been compared.
  
  
  METHODS
  Adult patients subjected to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy between June 2002 and March 2004 were randomized to either an ultrasonic fundus-first dissection or dissection from the triangle of Calot with electrocautery. Differences in direct and indirect costs related to either technique were studied.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The duration of the operation and hospitalization was longer when dissection was with the conventional technique. With the ultrasonic fundus-first technique, the direct cost was 1,190 SEK lower, and the total cost, taking also the cost for sick leave into account, was 5,370 SEK lower.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both direct and indirect costs are lower with a laparoscopic fundus-first cholecystectomy using ultrasonic dissection than conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy using electrocautery.
authors: Department of Surgery, Sundsvall Hospital, Sundsvall, Sweden.
authors: Fredrik
authors: F
authors: Tempé
authors: Arthur
authors: A
authors: Jänes
authors: Yucel
authors: Y
authors: Cengiz
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002763:Cholecystectomy / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D017081:Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D004210:Dissection / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D004564:Electrocoagulation / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D042882:Gallstones / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000191:economics; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014464:Ultrasonic Therapy / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods
references: Surg Endosc. 2010 Mar;24(3):624-30
references: 19688393
references: Br J Surg. 2005 Jul;92(7):810-3
references: 15880649
references: Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1992 Sep;2(3):191-8
references: 1341530
references: Br J Surg. 2004 Mar;91(3):312-6
references: 14991631
references: World J Surg. 2002 Sep;26(9):1117-21
references: 12209240
references: Am J Surg. 1995 May;169(5):503-6
references: 7747829
references: Aust N Z J Surg. 1999 Dec;69(12):841-3
references: 10613279
references: Br J Surg. 2006 Jan;93(1):40-5
references: 16329083
references: Am J Surg. 1993 Apr;165(4):444-9
references: 8480879
references: Ann Surg. 1998 Dec;228(6):734-40
references: 9860471
references: JSLS. 2010 Jan-Mar;14(1):23-34
references: 20412640
references: Surg Endosc. 1994 Jan;8(1):32-4
references: 8153862