Hospital Costs Associated With Laparoscopic and Open Inguinal Herniorrhaphy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the total hospital costs associated with elective laparoscopic and open inguinal herniorrhaphy. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients who underwent elective inguinal herniorrhaphy from April 2009 to March 2011. A retrospective review of electronic patient records was performed along with a standardized case-costing analysis using data from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative. The main outcomes were operating room (OR) and total hospital costs. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven patients underwent elective unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy (117 open and 94 laparoscopic), and 33 patients underwent elective bilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy (9 open and 24 laparoscopic). OR and total hospital costs for open unilateral inguinal hernia repair were significantly lower than for the laparoscopic approach (median total cost, $3207.15 vs $3723.66; P < .001). OR and total hospital costs for repair of elective bilateral inguinal hernias were similar between the open and laparoscopic approaches (median total cost, $4574.02 vs $4662.89; P = .827). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a Canadian academic hospital, when considering the repair of an elective unilateral inguinal hernia, the OR and total hospital costs of open surgery were significantly lower than for the laparoscopic techniques. There was no statistical difference between OR and total hospital costs when comparing open surgery and laparoscopic techniques for the repair of bilateral inguinal hernias. Given the perioperative benefits of laparoscopy, further studies incorporating hernia-specific outcomes are necessary to determine the cost-effectiveness of each approach and to define the optimal treatment strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".