Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Laparoscopic versus open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a cost analysis.

Kenneth Ogan1, Yair Lotan, Kenneth Koeneman

  • 1Clinical Center for Minimally Invasive Urologic Cancer Treatment, Dallas, Texas, USA.

The Journal of Urology
|October 24, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Laparoscopy/New Technology.

The Journal of urology·2021
Same author

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Pathologic T3a Renal Masses With Venous Tumor Thrombus.

Urology·2021
Same author

Radiofrequency Ablation of Small Renal Masses.

Journal of endourology·2021
Same author

Laparoscopy/New Technology.

The Journal of urology·2021
Same author

Clinical and radiographic outcomes following salvage intervention for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology·2021
Same author

Laparoscopy/New Technology.

The Journal of urology·2021
Same journal

Multi-institutional Assessment of Performance Metrics for MRI-targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.

The Journal of urology·2026
Same journal

Urinary Supersaturation in a Randomized Trial among Individuals with Recurrent Nephrolithiasis comparing Empiric versus Selective Preventive Therapy: The URINE Trial.

The Journal of urology·2026
Same journal

The FDA Should Allow More BCG Strains into the US Market: How Recent Landmark Trials Expose a Regulatory Paradox.

The Journal of urology·2026
Same journal

Let's Shift the Focus from Death to Life after Fournier's Gangrene.

The Journal of urology·2026
Same journal

Endourology and Nephrolithiasis.

The Journal of urology·2026
Same journal

With great cost comes great responsibility: who will own the rising costs of bladder cancer care?

The Journal of urology·2026
See all related articles

Open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is slightly less costly than the laparoscopic approach for testicular cancer. However, laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection can be made more cost-effective by optimizing operative time and hospital stay.

Area of Science:

  • Urology
  • Surgical Oncology
  • Health Economics

Background:

  • Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (LRPND) offers lower morbidity compared to open RPNLD.
  • LRPND is generally more expensive due to longer operative times and specialized equipment.
  • Cost-effectiveness of LRPND is a key consideration for program expansion.

Purpose of the Study:

  • Identify cost components of LRPND for potential cost reduction.
  • Compare the costs of open and laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.
  • Determine conditions under which LRPND becomes economically superior.

Main Methods:

  • Literature review of open and laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.
  • Abstraction of parameters: operative time, equipment, hospital stay, complications, success rates.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Decision tree analysis and sensitivity analysis to model costs.
  • Base case analysis for clinical stage I nonseminomatous testicular cancer.

    • Main Results:

    • Open RPNLD cost: $7,162; Laparoscopic RPNLD cost: $7,804.
    • Open approach favored due to lower OR time and equipment costs.
    • Laparoscopic approach showed cost advantage in hospital stay.
    • LRPND less costly if operative time < 3.6 hrs, hospitalization < 2.2 days, or equipment cost < $768.

    Conclusions:

    • Operative time, hospital stay, and equipment cost are primary cost drivers.
    • Open RPNLD is currently slightly less costly for stage I nonseminomatous testicular cancer.
    • Strategies exist to make LRPND economically superior to open RPNLD.