The cost-effectiveness of 10 selected applications in minimally invasive therapy
Review
OA: closed
public-domain-us
AI-generated summary
This review evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ten minimally invasive procedures, including laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis, finding that evidence is disappointingly limited despite considerable potential.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
In this article, evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the following procedures is reviewed: (1) laser treatment of bladder tumors; (2) extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy; (3) laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis; (4) laparoscopic removal of ovarian cysts; (5) laparoscopic cholecystectomy; (6) laparoscopic appendectomy; (7) catheter treatment of coronary artery disease; (8) palliation of colon cancer by endoscopic intervention; (9) treatment of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding by endoscopic intervention; and (10) arthroscopic knee surgery. Despite considerable potential to be effective and cost-effective, evidence is disappointingly limited in these cases. The lack of evidence hampers decision-making in this new field.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Condition tags
MeSH descriptors
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-10-16T06:09:50.462052+00:00
- pubmed
- last seen: 2026-10-08T20:58:50.057178+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-10-16T06:24:35.758740+00:00
License: public-domain-us
· commercial use OK
· attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine