2008, Number 1
Total costs comparison of open surgery versus urological laparoscopic surgery, at the Centro Medico Nacional
Gómez-Villegas R, Cortez-Betancourt R, Velarde-Carrillo A, Guzmán-Hernández F, Díaz-García C, Ramírez-Gallardo G, Mojarro-Rodríguez C, Huante-Pérez A
Full text
Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 14-20
PDF size: 230.36 Kb.
ABSTRACT
Up until a few years ago, it was not considered possible for laparoscopic surgery to be more advantageous than open surgery. There were many valid arguments supporting this perception, such as fatal complications and high cost, along with its disqualification by international societies and colleges. Advances in technology have provided the implementation of more economical materials that produce fewer complications. CO2 insufflators, monitors and telescopes now have better resolution quality. Surgical training workshops using animals have been adapted, providing rapid improvement in the learning curve and the opportunity to learn from mistakes. Laparoscopic surgery is presently performed in practically every surgical technique, becoming the surgical method of choice for both surgeons and patients. However, an institutional culture promoting the systematic training of surgeons so that laparoscopy can be initially resorted to does not exist.Laparoscopic surgery is in a period of transition in relation to being accepted as a useful procedure – one that is less aggressive, has a faster patient recuperation period and is much more economical than open surgery. However, many doctors, as well as hospital administrators, believe that the procedure is not economical and that it is only of benefit to the patient.
The objective of this study is to demonstrate the principal benefits obtained from urological laparoscopic surgery vs. open surgery in relation to economic savings in surgical materials, hospital stay and length of recuperation period.
REFERENCES