| Title |
Cost analysis for thoracoscopy: Thoracoscopic wedge resection and lobectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgery Today, January 1998
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf02483607 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kazuro Sugi, Yoshikazu Kaneda, Kouichi Nawata, Nobuhiro Fujita, Kazuhiro Ueda, Sumihiko Nawata, Kensuke Esato |
| Abstract |
We reviewed our experience with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in our most recent 80 patients for the purpose of cost analysis. The costs incurred in the patients undergoing a VATS wedge resection for nodules (n = 30) and a VATS lobectomy for lung cancer (n = 10) were compared with the costs in similar patients undergoing a wedge resection (n = 20) and lobectomy (n = 20) using open techniques. The disposable instrument costs were US $1071 higher for a VATS wedge resection; however, the operative time was shorter (0.99 h for VATS versus 1.75 h for the open procedure). The length of hospital stay was also shorter after a VATS wedge resection (10.4 days for VATS versus 16.8 days for the open procedure), thus resulting in lower total hospital charge in the VATS group. The disposable instrument costs were $3190 higher for a VATS lobectomy, and the operative time was longer (5.56 h for VATS versus 4.25 h for the open procedure). The length of hospital stay was similar in both groups (25.2 days for VATS versus 27.7 days for the open procedure), thus resulting in a higher total hospital charge in the VATS lobectomy group. The cost of a VATS wedge resection for removing peripheral nodules is competitive with that of open techniques, but the cost of a VATS lobectomy is higher than that for an open lobectomy. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| China | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 75% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2008.
All research outputs
#7,524,294
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Surgery Today
#132
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,624
of 94,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgery Today
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 94,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.