International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 233–239 | Cite as

Single center cost analysis of single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgical treatment in colorectal malignant diseases

  • Yoen T.K. van der LindenEmail author
  • Johannes A. Govaert
  • Marta Fiocco
  • Wouter A. van Dijk
  • Daniel J. Lips
  • Hubert A. Prins
Original Article


Background and purpose

Single-port laparoscopy (SPL) is a relatively new technique, used in various procedures. There is limited knowledge about the cost effectiveness and the learning curve of this technique. The primary aim of this study was to compare hospital costs between SPL and conventional laparoscopic resections (CLR) for colorectal cancer; the secondary aim was to identify a learning curve of SPL.


All elective colorectal cancer SPL and CLR performed in a major teaching hospital between 2011 and 2012 that were registered in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were included (n = 267). The economic evaluation was conducted from a hospital perspective, and costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology up to 90 days after discharge. When looking at SPL only, the introduction year (2011) was compared to the next year (2012).


SPL (n = 78) was associated with lower mortality, lower reintervention rates, and more complications as compared to CLR (n = 189); however, none of these differences were statistically significant. A significant shorter operating time was seen in the SPL. Total costs were higher for SPL group as compared to CLR; however, this difference was not statistically significant. For the SPL group, most clinical outcomes improved between 2011 and 2012; moreover, total hospital costs for SPL in 2012 became comparable to CLR.


No significant differences in financial outcomes between SPL and CLR were identified. After the introduction period, SPL showed similar results as compared to CLR. Conclusions are based on a small single-port group and the conclusions of this manuscript should be an impetus for further research.


Single-port laparoscopy Colorectal cancer surgery Cost analysis Laparoscopic surgery 



All authors participated sufficiently to the content of this manuscript. No acknowledgements.

Compliance with ethical standards


Yoen van der Linden, Johannes Govaert, Marta Fiocco, Wouter van Dijk, Daniel Lips, and Hubert Prins have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

384_2016_2692_MOESM1_ESM.docx (11 kb)
Table S1 (DOCX 11 kb)


  1. 1.
    Breukink S, Pierie J, Wiggers T (2006) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD005200. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005200.pub2 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feliciotti F, Guerrieri M, Paganini AM, De Sanctis A, Campagnacci R, Perretta S, D’Ambrosio G, Lezoche E (2003) Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients. Surg Endosc 17(10):1530–1535. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-8874-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique JM, Visa J (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359(9325):2224–2229. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09290-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hotta T, Yamaue H (2011) Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: review of published literature 2000-2009. Surg Today 41(12):1583–1591. doi: 10.1007/s00595-010-4555-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jefferies MT, Evans MD, Hilton J, Chandrasekaran TV, Beynon J, Khot U (2012) Oncological outcome after laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. Color Dis 14(8):967–971. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02882.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange- Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E, Group, CIS (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372(14):1324–1332. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardy KM, Kwong J, Pitzul KB, Vergis AS, Jackson TD, Urbach DR, Okrainec A (2014) A cost comparison of laparoscopic and open colon surgery in a publicly funded academic institution. Surg Endosc 28(4):1213–1222. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3311-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Delaney CP, Kiran RP, Senagore AJ, Brady K, Fazio VW (2003) Case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcome after laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 238(1):67–72. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000074967.53451.22 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noblett SE, Horgan AF (2007) A prospective case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcomes of open versus laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 21(3):404–408. doi: 10.1007/s00464-006-9016-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dowson HM, Huang A, Soon Y, Gage H, Lovell DP, Rockall TA (2007) Systematic review of the costs of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon rectum 50(6):908–919. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-0234-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antoniou SA, Koch OO, Antoniou GA, Lasithiotakis K, Chalkiadakis GE, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2014) Meta-analysis of randomized trials on single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. Am J Surg 207(4):613–622. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.07.045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fung AK, Aly EH (2012) Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery. Br J Surg 99(10):1353–1364. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8834 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Markar SR, Wiggins T, Penna M, Paraskeva P (2014) Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery—systematic review and pooled analysis. J Gastrointest Surg: Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 18(12):2214–2227. doi: 10.1007/s11605-014-2654-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sulu B, Gorgun E, Aytac E, Costedio MM, Kiran RP, Remzi FH (2014) Comparison of hospital costs for single-port and conventional laparoscopic colorectal resection: a case-matched study. Tech Coloproctology 18(9):835–839. doi: 10.1007/s10151-014-1147-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Linden YT, Boersma D, van Poll D, Lips DJ, Prins HA (2015) Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy in children: single center experience in 50 patients. Acta Chir Belg 115 (2):118–122Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Linden YT, Bosscha K, Prins HA, Lips DJ (2015) Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a non-randomized, age-matched single center trial. World J Gastrointest Surg 7(8):145–151. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v7.i8.145 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Leersum NJ, Snijders HS, Henneman D, Kolfschoten NE, Gooiker GA, ten Berge MG, Eddes EH, Wouters MW, Tollenaar RA, Dutch Surgical Colorectal Cancer Audit G, Bemelman WA, van Dam RM, Elferink MA, Karsten TM, van Krieken JH, Lemmens VE, Rutten HJ, Manusama ER, van de Velde CJ, Meijerink WJ, Wiggers T, van der Harst E, Dekker JW, Boerma D (2013) The Dutch surgical colorectal audit. Eur J Surg Oncol: J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol 39(10):1063–1070. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kolfschoten NE, van Leersum NJ, Gooiker GA, Marang van de Mheen PJ, Eddes EH, Kievit J, Brand R, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA, Tollenaar RA, Meijerink J, Wouters MW (2013) Successful and safe introduction of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in Dutch hospitals. Ann Surg 257(5):916–921. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31825d0f37 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Performation. wwwperformationcomGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klarenbeek BR, Coupe VM, van der Peet DL, Cuesta MA (2011) The cost effectiveness of elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for symptomatic diverticular disease: financial outcome of the randomized control Sigma trial. Surg Endosc 25(3):776–783. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1252-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaplan RS, Anderson SR (2004) Time-driven activity-based costing. Harv Bus Rev 82(11):131-138–131-150Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Porter ME, Lee TH (2013) The strategy that will fix health care. Harv Bus Rev 91(12):24–24Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCulloch CE, Searle SR (2001) Generalized, linear, and mixed models, 1st edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lindsey JK, Jones B (1998) Choosing among generalized linear models applied to medical data. Stat Med 17(1):59–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Poon JT, Cheung CW, Fan JK, Lo OS, Law WL (2012) Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasm: a randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26(10):2729–2734. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2262-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Mereu A, Binda B, Brachini G, Trombetta S (2012) Standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: early results of a randomized prospective study. Am J Surg 204(1):115–120. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.09.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Govaert JA, van Bommel AC, van Dijk WA, van Leersum NJ, Tollenaar RA, Wouters MW (2015) Reducing healthcare costs facilitated by surgical auditing: a systematic review. World J Surg. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3005-9 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F, Kafali ME, Sahin M (2012) Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A 22(8):731–737. doi: 10.1089/lap.2012.0129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Milas M, Devedija S, Trkulja V (2014) Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Surg: J Royal Coll Surg Edinb Irel 12(5):271–289. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2014.01.009 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoen T.K. van der Linden
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Johannes A. Govaert
    • 3
    • 4
  • Marta Fiocco
    • 5
    • 6
  • Wouter A. van Dijk
    • 7
    • 8
  • Daniel J. Lips
    • 1
  • Hubert A. Prins
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General Surgery ResidentJeroen Bosch Hospital‘s HertogenboschThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryGroene Hart ZiekenhuisGoudaThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Medical Statistics and BioinformaticsLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Leiden University Mathematical InstituteLeidenThe Netherlands
  7. 7.PerformationBilthovenThe Netherlands
  8. 8.X-ISDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations