Skip to content

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Cholecystectomy, Projected Long Term Outcomes and Complications Evaluation

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Transgastric Cholecystectomy, Transvaginal Cholecystectomy, and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Projected Long Term Outcomes and Complications Evaluation

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01117415
Acronym
NOTES
Enrollment
37
Registered
2010-05-05
Start date
2007-04-30
Completion date
2010-06-30
Last updated
2015-06-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cholelithiasis

Keywords

Gall Bladder, Cholecystectomy

Brief summary

Participation in this research study does not involve any procedures. Health preference will be ascertained through standard techniques including time-tradeoff, standard gamble, and rating scale to assess risks regarding potential complications specific to NOTES (Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery)gallbladder removal.

Detailed description

The enticement of scarless surgery has created an unprecedented wave of enthusiasm and collaboration amongst surgeons, gastroenterologists, industry, and the lay public. However, major hurdles remain between current minimally invasive practices and the ultimate goal of safe, effective Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). In an ideal world, these procedures should incur equivalent (or less) morbidity than current laparoscopic approaches and offer benefits of incisionless surgery. This idealism has been quickly tempered by the potential to create new and devastating complications with only minimal potential benefit to the patient. Several critical questions need to be answered. What probability of complication(s) are to be accepted? How will the potential benefits of NOTES be weighed against these new complications? What factors unique to NOTES will contribute to its cost effectiveness? The proposed study seeks to answer these questions before they occur. These results will give clinicians and investigators the necessary information with which to compare outcomes of NOTES and potentially alter techniques for safer, more effective interventions.

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
CASE_ONLY
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Candidate of either sex * 18 years old or above * Have symptomatic cholelithiasis * Wish to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment

Exclusion criteria

* Not Applicable

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Compare cost effectiveness data at one year postoperative1 yearOne year cost effectiveness data comparing transgastric cholecystectomy, transvaginal cholecystectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Costs from two national databases: the State Ambulatory Surgery Database (SASD) and the NIS. The main outcome measure for this study will be cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Markov modeling techniques for model patient experiences for each of the procedures analyzed. Monte Carlo simulation will be used to calculate cost per QALY over a one year time span with determination of the incremental cost effectiveness ratio.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Analyze the important factor that contributes to cost effectiveness at one year post operative.One yearExtensive sensitivity analyses of how individual factors (e.g. probability of gastric leak in transgastric cholecystectomy) impact cost effectiveness. Factors are varied over a clinically plausible range and their impact on cost effectiveness determined. One way and two way sensitivity analyses allow alterations of one or two factors simultaneously. Multiway sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation will be used to vary several variables simultaneously and to determine impact on cost effectiveness.

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026