Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Laparoscopic hemihepatectomy shows higher costs but better QALYs than open approach in European trialLaparoscopic surgery costs more upfront but may offer better value for some liver patients

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider laparoscopic hemihepatectomy's higher cost against QALY gains in selected patients where resources permit.

This secondary analysis of a phase 3 randomized controlled trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy. The study included 332 patients randomized across 16 European centers (166 to laparoscopic hemihepatectomy [LH], 166 to open hemihepatectomy [OH]), with outcomes assessed over 1 year postoperatively. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with secondary outcomes including intraoperative, postoperative, and overall costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

LH was associated with higher intraoperative costs (€13,208 vs €9,437 for OH) but lower postoperative costs (€5,774 vs €7,703). The mean overall cost per patient was higher for LH (€18,982 vs €17,141). However, patients in the LH group gained more QALYs over 1 year (0.834, SD 0.218) compared to the OH group (0.795, SD 0.237). The resulting ICER was €36,677 per additional QALY gained for LH, with a 77% probability of LH being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY.

Safety and tolerability data were not reported in this economic analysis. Key limitations include the lack of reported funding or conflicts of interest information and the absence of detailed adverse event reporting. The 1-year follow-up period may be insufficient to capture all long-term cost and quality-of-life implications. In practice, where resources allow, LH may represent an acceptable economic value for selected patients undergoing hemihepatectomy, but decisions should integrate these cost-effectiveness findings with clinical efficacy and safety data from the primary trial.

Researchers analyzed data from 332 patients who underwent either laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) or open hemihepatectomy (OH) at 16 centers in Europe. The goal was to understand how these two surgical approaches affected healthcare costs and patient quality of life over one year. Laparoscopic surgery involved higher costs during the operation itself, totaling 13,208 euros compared to 9,437 euros for open surgery. However, patients who had the laparoscopic procedure spent less on care after the operation, with postoperative costs of 5,774 euros versus 7,703 euros for open surgery.

When combining all expenses, the laparoscopic approach resulted in a higher mean overall cost per patient of 18,982 euros compared to 17,141 euros for open surgery. Despite this higher price tag, laparoscopic surgery provided a higher number of quality-adjusted life years, with a score of 0.834 versus 0.795 for open surgery. The study calculated that the additional cost was roughly 36,677 euros for each extra quality-adjusted life year gained. There was a 77% probability that laparoscopic surgery would be considered cost-effective under these conditions.

The study did not report specific safety concerns, adverse events, or discontinuations. Because this was a secondary analysis of existing trial data, the results reflect economic and quality-of-life differences rather than new clinical safety findings. Readers should understand that while laparoscopic surgery may be preferred where resources allow, the higher total cost is a significant factor. This evidence suggests that for selected patients, the procedure offers clinical benefits and acceptable economic value, but it is not universally cheaper or cheaper for everyone.

What this means for you:
Laparoscopic surgery costs more overall but may offer better value for selected patients where resources allow.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 166
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) has favorable short-term outcomes compared with open hemihepatectomy (OH), including shorter hospital stay. An in-depth healthcare utilization and cost-effectiveness analysis of the international multicenter ORANGE II PLUS randomized controlled trial comparing LH and OH was performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to LH or OH in 16 European centers from October 2013 to January 2019. Costs were determined as a product of unit costs using patient-level, clinician-reported resource utilization up to 90 days. Item-specific resource use per country was presented. The measure of effect was quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Cost and effect differences were compared between treatment arms using nonparametric bootstrapping, from a Dutch healthcare cost perspective. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to establish the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), i.e., costs per QALY gained, for LH compared with OH 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Among 332 patients randomized to LH (n = 166) and OH (n = 166), intraoperative costs were higher for LH (LH 13,208 € versus OH 9437 €), while postoperative costs were lower for LH (LH 5774 € versus OH 7703 €). Longer operative time and greater instrument use contributed to higher intraoperative costs, while shorter hospital stays contributed to lower postoperative costs. Mean overall costs per patient were higher in LH (LH 18,982 € versus OH 17,141 €). The QALYs gained over 1 year postoperative were mean (standard deviation [SD]) 0.834 (0.218) for LH and mean 0.795 (0.237) for OH. The ICER was 36,677 € per additional QALY gained, and uncertainty analyses showed that LH had a 77% probability of being cost-effective compared with OH at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 80,000 €. CONCLUSIONS: Although LH was more costly than OH, in a multicenter randomized trial, its clinical advantages translated into more QALYs gained over the first postoperative year and high probability of cost-effectiveness. These findings suggest that, where resources allow, LH may be preferred over OH for selected patients, offering both clinical benefits and acceptable economic value.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.