A cost-utility analysis of laparoscopic vs open treatment of colorectal cancer in a public hospital of the Greek National Health System.

Purpose: Laparoscopic colectomy has been reported as a safe and oncologically similar operation to open colectomy. A number of expensive surgical instruments are necessary for the procedure which should be applied if it is cost-effective for the patient and the health system in general. The purpose of the current study was the economic evaluation of laparoscopic compared to open colectomy for the treatment of colon cancer in the Greek national health system.

Methods: Fifty patients undergoing open colectomy and 42 undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were enrolled in this case-control study. Length of hospital stay, duration of operation, complication rates, cost of equipment used, total costs and three questionnaires measuring quality of life /QoL (EQ-5D, SF-36 and QLQ-C30) at baseline, 1 and 3 months after the operation were recorded.

Results: No statistically significant difference in QoL measured by QALYs between laparoscopic and open colectomy was observed. On the other hand, cost utility analysis revealed that laparoscopic colectomy was more expensive considering the advantages it offers.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic colectomy is not superior to open colectomy on a QoL basis in the Greek public hospital system and is less cost-effective compared to the open procedure. Since the expensive equipment used in laparoscopic colectomy seems to be the causative factor for the high cost of this type of operation, an effort should be made to reduce it either by using reusable instruments or by implementing policies aiming at suppliers cutting down equipment charges.